HISTORY 


OF   THE 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  EESCUE. 


VIEW  OF  THE  JAIL  AT   CLEVELAND,   OHIO,   WHERE   THE   PRISONERS  WERE   CONFINED. 

COMP'ILED    BY 

JA.COB     R.     S  HI  ]?  BE  E  R  D. 

WITH   AN   INTRODUCTION  BY 

PROF.  HENRY  F.  PECK,,  AND  HON.  RALPH  PLUMB. 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED    BY    JOHN    P.    JEWETT  AND    COMPANY. 

CLEVELAND,    OHIO : 

HENRY    P.     B.    JEWETT. 

NEW   YORK  : 
SHELDON  AND  COMPANY. 

1859. 


545 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1859,  by 

JOHN  P.  JEWETT   AND    COMPANY, 
In  the  Clerk's   Office  of  the    District  Court  for  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

ALLEN  AND   FARXIIAM,    ELECTROTYPEKS  AND  PRINTERS. 


TO    THE 

THIRTY-SEVEN    INDICTED, 

ft  lift  tn  nil 

WHO    WITH    THEM   BELIEVE    IN    THE    DOCTRINES    OF    THE 
DECLARATION    OF    AMERICAN    INDEPENDENCE, 


C \  \  s   ft  ff I n  nu 


IS  AFFECTIONATELY  INSCRIBED, 


THE    COMPILER. 

(8) 


m83709 


TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION.     ....     ...     •  ?•••;  •"?'•  ^~ •;_•;::•  ^  •     •     vii 

FIRST  WORDS .>'.-.       .       .  ix 

HISTORY  OF  THE  OBEELIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE       .       .       ..*L' •!_•.•_•       •          1 

CHAPTER    FIRST. 

Wellington  —  Oberlin  —  The  Rescue  — The  Grand  Jury— The  Arrests  —  Appearance  in  Court— Cases 
continued  —  " The  Felons'  Feast"  — The  Arrest  of  Lincoln  —  Winsor's  voluntary  appearance  — 
Cummings  arrested — Six  still  at  large  —  Cases  continued  from  March  to  April  —  The  "struck" 
jury •  1-13 

CHAPTER    SECOND. 

Trial  of  Bushnell  begun  —  Lowe  arrested  for  kidnapping  —  The  traverse  jury  —  The  indictment  —  The 
law  — The  Constitution  —  Testimony  of  Bacon;  of  Cochran;  of  Jennings.  —  Second  Day  —  Jen- 
nings's  testimony  continued  —  Testimony  of  Bartholomew;  of  Halbert;  of  Wood. —  Third  Day  — 
Testimony  of  Wheeler;  of  Mitchell;  of  Irish;  of  Fair;  of  Meacham;  of  D.  L.  Wadsworth;  of 
Bennett.  —  Fourth  Day  —  Testimony  of  Bennett  continued  —  Testimony  of  Kinney;  of  Marks;  of 
Wack;  of  0.  S.  Wadsworth;  of  Worden;  of  Whitney— Bacon  recalled  —  Prosecution  rest  —  Wit 
nesses  for  the  defence  —  L.  D.  Boynton;  Shakespeare  Boynton.  —  Fifth  Day — Testimony  of 
Prof.  Peck;  of  Plumb;  of  Fitch;  of  Dickson;  of  Patton.  —  Sixth  Day  —  Patton's  testimony  con 
tinued—An  officer  of  the  Court  on  the  jury  — Testimony  of  Howk;  of  Butler;  of  Cox;  of  Weed; 
of  Pelton;  of  Brokaw;  of  Elliott;  of  Beecher;  of  Bunce;  of  Johnson;  of  Wall  —  Defence  rest.  — 
Seventh  Day  —  Prosecution  resume  the  examination  of  witnesses  —  Wood  recalled  —  Testimony  of 
Gaston  —  Worden  recalled  —  Testimony  of  E.  A.  Munson;  of  E.  P.  Dodge  — Marks  recalled  —  Mitch 
ell  recalled  —  Jennings  recalled  —  Testimony  of  Pierce;  of  H.  Dodge;  of  Kellogg;  of  Dewey;  of  E. 
F.  Munson;  of  J.  S.  Dodge — Wack  recalled —  Testimony  closed — Argument  of  Judge  Bliss  —  Argu 
ment  of  Mr.  Riddle  —  Argument  of  Judge  Spalding  —  Argument  of  District-Attorney  Belden  — 
Judge  Willson's  charge  to  the  jury  —  Special  ^charges — The  Verdict  —  The  "struck"  jury  to  try 
each  of  the  Thirty-seven  —  Twenty  ordered  to  jail  for  taking  exceptions  to  such  a  jury  —  Inside  view 
of  prison  life— Prof.  Peck's  Sermon  — "A  Voice  from  the  Jug"— Why  they  were  sent  to 
jail 13-94 


CHAPTER    THIRD. 

Introductory  —  Trial  of  Langston  begun  —  The  Journal  entry  of  April  15th,  and  the  discussion  upon  it  — 
The  order  for  Bushnell' s  commitment — A  new  jury  ordered;  Court  of  a  new  opinion  —  The  new 
jury  —  The  Indictment  —  Testimony  of  Bacon.  —  Second  Day  —  Testimony  of  Bacon  continued  — 
Testimony  of  Cochran;  of  Jennings. —  Third  Day — Testimony  of  Jennings  continued  —  Testimony 
of  Mitchell  —  The  kidnappers  protected  by  the  Federal  authorities  —  Testimony  of  Wack ;  of  Ells ; 

(iv) 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS.  V 

of  Wood.  —  Fourth  Day  —  Testimony  of  Wood  continued  —  Testimony  of  Worden ;  of  Kelley ;  of 
Wheeler.  —  Fifth  Day — Testimony  of  Wheeler  continued  —  Testimony  of  C.  Wadsworth;  of  E.  S. 
Lyman;  of  Giiston  —  Kidnapping  of  Bushndl  —  Testimony  of  Halbert  —  The  first  application  for  a 
writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  —  Arguments  pro  and  con —  Decision  of  the  Court.  —  Sixth  Day  —  Indictments 
against  Wall  and  Shepard  nolled—  Keasons  why.  —  Seventh  Day.  — Eighth  Day—  District- Attorney 
Belden  goes  home  to  rest.  —  Ninth  Day  —  Testimony  of  Barber;  of  Sciples;  of  Bonney;  of  Thayer; 
of  Reynolds;  of  Lowe. —  Tenth  Day — Testimony  of  Lowe  continued  —  Jennings's  affidavit  and  the 
Commissioner's  warrant  issued  upon  it  —  Testimony  of  Chittenden  —  Jennings  recalled —  Testimony 
of  Davis  —  Prosecution  rest  —  Witnesses  for  the  Defence  —  E.  S.  Kinney ;  Dickson ;  Bennett.  — 
Eleventh  Day — Testimony  of  Bennett  continued — Testimony  of  Howk;  of  Meacham;  of  Cowles; 
of  Patton;  of  Stevens;  of  Watson. —  Twelfth  Day — Mandeville,  Niles,  Williams,  and  Cummings 
plead  nolle  contendere  —  Testimony  of  Sexton ;  of  Elliott ;  of  Johnson ;  of  H.  Evans ;  of  J.  L.  Wads- 
worth  ;  of  Bryce  —  Patton  recalled  —  Cowles  recalled  —  Defence  rest  with  privilege  of  renewal  — 
Prosecution  in  rebuttal  recall  Sciples;  Wheeler;  Lowe;  Jennings  —  Defence  recall  Bennett; 
Meacham;  Watson  —  Swear  Gillett;  Wadsworth — Testimony  closed — Argument  of  District- Attor 
ney  Belden. —  Thirteenth  Day  —  Mr.  Belden' s  argument  continued  —  Mr.  Griswold's  argument. — 
Fourteenth  Day  —  Argument  of  Mr.  Backus.  —  Fifteenth  Day  —  Argument  of  Judge  Bliss  —  Charge 
of  the  Court—  The  Verdict 94-169 


CHAPTER    FOURTH. 

Bushnell  sentenced — The  other  cases  continued  to  the  July  term  —  Discuss! an  on  the  Journal  entry  of 
April  15th  —  Lanystorfs  Speech — His  Sentence — De  Wolfe,  Loveland,  and  Wadsworth  plead  nolle 
contendere  —  Judge  Andrews'  Speech — Statement  of  the  Oberlin  Prisoners  in  Jail  —  Father  Gillett 
sent  home  —  Second  Application  for  Habeas  Corpus  —  Copy  of  the  Writ  —  The  Marshal  concludes  not 
to  do  his  duty  —  Before  the  Supreme  Court  —  Mr.  Riddle's  Argument  —  Mr.  Swayne's  Brief — Argu 
ment  of  Attorney- General  Wolcolt  —  Judge  Swan's  Opinion  —  Judge  Scott's  —  Judge  Peck's  —  Judge 
BrinkerhofPs  —  Judge  Sutliffs  —  Constructive  Jail-breaking 170-231 


CHAPTER    FIFTH. 

The  Kidnappers  in  trouble  —  Judge  Carpenter's  Charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  — The  first  Indictment— The 
first  Warrant  —  The  second  Indictment  —  The  second  Warrant  —  The  Journal  entry  —  Judge  Willson 
indicted  for  kidnapping  —  Judge  Willson's  opinion  of  the  Fugitive  Law  in  1852  —  Antecedents  of 
great  men  —  Marshal  Johnson  and  his  deputy  Dayton  —  "Our  Marshal"  —  Speech  of  Hon.  J.  R. 
French  — The  "Sons  of  Liberty  "  — The  Cleveland  Mass  Meeting  —  Visit  of  the  Sabbath  School  — 
The  Finale  —  "  The  Rescue  "  —  Kentucky  courage  —  Judge  McLean  issues  Habeas  Corpus  —  A  strange 
proceeding  —  Prudence  the  better  part  of  valor — The  United  States  propose  to  capitulate  —  Terms 
agreed  on  —  Prisoners  exchanged  —  All  discharged  —  So  endeth  "  The  First  Siege  of  Oberlin  "  —  The 
Rescuers'  Resolves  —  Closing  Scene  at  the  Jail  —  Escorted  to  the  Cars  —  Grand  Reception  at  Oberlin  — 
Keception  of  Bushnell — "  A  Song  for  Freedom  "  —  THE  END 231-280 


INTRODUCTORY   NOTE. 


NINE  years  ago  the  moral  sense  of  the  better  part  of  our  nation,  not  to 
say  of  the  civilized  world,  was  shocked  by  the  passage  by  Congress  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act.  The  iniquities  of  this  new  device  of  oppression, — 
its  assault  upon  personal  rights  in  the  virtual  suspension  of  Habeas  Cor- 
pus,  its  daring  invasion  of  States-rights,  its  summary  and  cruel  process 
of  recaption,  its  arbitrary  requirement  that  all  citizens  shall  serve  the 
man-hunter  at  his  call,  and  the  vindictive  penalties  which  it  denounced 
against  any  who  might  be  constrained  by  self-respect  or  humanity  to  dis 
regard  its  infamous  precepts,  —  these  peculiarities,  made  this  composing 
draught*  as  "molten  lead  to  a  mint-julep"  in  comparison  with  all  pre 
vious  pro-slavery  Federal  enactments.  Language  could  not  describe  the 
terror  which  this  villany  framed  into  law  carried  to  the  souls  of  the  colored 
people  scattered  through  the  North,  who  saw  that  now,  whether  free  or 
not,  they  might,  at  any  moment,  be  spirited  away  under  nominally-legal 
forms,  and  consigned  to  hopeless  slavery.  Nor  could  words  express  the 
profound  apprehension  with  which  the  friends  of  Freedom  foresaw  in  this 
new  and  abject  concession  to  the  slave-holding  power  its  final  predominance 
in  our  country. 

But  the  horror  with  which  this  so-called  law  was  very  generally  regarded 
in  the  Free  States  was  qualified,  and  almost,  if  not  quite  appeased  by  the 
conviction  that  so  infamous  an  enactment  would  not  and  could  not  be 
enforced.  Alas,  for  the  hopas  based  on  this  conviction !  The  carrying  into 
slavery  of  several  persons  afterwards  proved  to  be  free,  and  the  recaption 
of  one  poor  fugitive  from  oppression  after  another,  soon  proved  that  the 
cruel  statute  was  not  a  dead  letter.  It  has  been  from  its  enactment  a  liv 
ing,  as  well  as  terrible,  reality. 

*  The  illustration  is  borrowed  from  a   Speech  made  by  a  celebrated   Cleveland  divine 
soon  after  the  passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

(vi) 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTE.  VU 

What  this  ordinance,  misnamed  law,  is ;  what  its  purposes,  what  its 
demands,  and  what  its  penalties  are,  and  what  the  measures  by  which  it 
enforces  itself  against  the  conscience  and  sense  of  justice  which  every 
where  in  the  North  oppose  it,  —  all  these  points  have  been  well  illustrated 
in  the  now  celebrated  Oberlin-Wellington  Rescue  trials.  These  trials  oc 
curred  on  the  Western  Reserve  —  a  name  honorable  for  the  reputation  for 
love  of  Freedom  which  is  coupled  with  it,  and  may,  therefore,  be  sup 
posed  to  exhibit  a  fair  encounter  on  a  fair  field  between  the  despotic  en 
actment,  and  the  outraged  sense  of  right  which  protests  against  it.  They 
engaged  on  both  sides,  and  at  the  bar  of  both  the  Federal  and  Supreme 
State  Courts,  the  highest  legal  talent  in  the  State.  A  correct  history  of 
them  will,  therefore,  show  clearly  what  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  is,  and 
what  measures  its  enforcement  requires. 

Such  a  history  is  presented  in  this  volume.  Its  compiler  is  a  young  man 
of  excellent  ability  who  has  had  more  than  common  experience  in  report 
ing  public  events,  and  it  has  been  made  up,  as  the  undersigned  know  from 
constant  communication  with  the  compiler,  and  from  a  careful  review  of 
his  materials,  with  religious  fidelity  to  truth. 

In  closing  this  Introduction,  we  beg  leave  to  urge  the  readers  ojf  this 
volume  to  inquire,  in  the  light  of  what  is  here  presented,  whether  the 
fact  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  can  exist,  and  be  in  form  enforced,  does 
not  prove  that  regard  for  Freedom  no  longer  presides  in  the  councils  of 
our  Government;  that  the  slave-holding  power  has  smitten  down  the  per 
sonal  rights  of  freemen,  and  trampled  on  the  honor  and  rights  of  the 
States ;  and  whether,  if  the  Free  States  do  not  speedily,  by  judicial  and 
legislative  action,  assert  their  rights,  our  whole  country  will  not  soon,  un 
der  the  operation  of  the  Drcd  Scott  decision,  be  embraced  in  the  arms  of 
a  gigantic  tyranny  which  shall  know  no  law  but  its  own  despotic  will. 

Especially  would  we  ask  our  fellow-citizens  of  Ohio,  whether  they  are 
willing  longer  to  allow  arbitrary  encroachments  on  the  part  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  and  timid  deference  to  precedent  on  the  part  of  our 
State  Judiciary,  to  make  our  noble  State  a  mere  province  of  an  overshad 
owing  empire  of  centralized  and  malignant  power. 


CUYAHOGA  COUNTY  JAIL,     "> 
Cleveland,    Ohio,   July  1,  1859.} 


H.  E.   PECK, 
RALPH  PLUMB. 


FIRST   WORDS. 


THE  digest  of  the  testimony  in  Mr.  Bushnell's  case  "was  made  during  the 
progress  of  the  trial,  and  with  such  care  that  it  is  believed  it  will  be  found 
more  accurate  and  comprehensive  than  any  hitherto  published.  The  argu 
ments  of  Messrs.  Riddle,  Spalding,  Griswold,  Backus,  and  Wolcott  were 
reported  phonographically,  and  are  published  with  the  sanction  of  their 
authors.  Every  effort  was  made  to  secure  equally  full  and  accurate  reports 
of  the  arguments  of  the  counsel  for  the  Government,  but,  unfortunately, 
without  success.  For  such  use  as  has  been  made  of  the  materials  of  others, 
it  has  been  endeavored  to  accord  due  acknowledgment  elsewhere,  save  that  it 
remai^  to  mention  here  the  kind  offices  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Kagi,  of  Mr.  J.  M. 
Greene,  and  of  one  whose  modesty  forbids  the  mention  of  her  name.  To 
Mr.  Greene,  the  reader  is  indebted  for  the  stereoscopic  view  which  is  found 
engraved  upon  the  title-page. 

The  materials  with  which  the  writer  has  wrought,  have  been  superabundant. 
Much  that  seemed  scarcely  less  important  than  the  rest,  and  at  first  none 
less,  has  been  necessarily  omitted.  Necessarily,  lest  the  general  reader  should 
feel  burdened.  To  the  people  of  Ohio,  it  is  believed  that  every  link  of  this 
remarkable  chain  of  events  has  surpassing  significance  and  interest.  But, 
lest  it  may  not  be  so  abroad,  the  best  judgment  of  the  compiler  has  been 
taxed  to  omit  nothing  essential,  while  accepting  nothing  trivial.  If  others 
would  have  chosen  more  wisely,  no  one  can  regret  more  sincerely  than  him 
self  that  their  counsel  was  not  seasonably  at  his  command. 

Such  typographical  errors  as  may  have  escaped  notice  in  the  proofs,  the 
reader  is  asked  to  be  patient  with,  in  consideration  of  the  urgency  with  which 
the  work  has  been  pressed ;  the  last  page  being  in  type  within  eight  days  after 
the  Reception  of  Mr.  Buslmell. 

QUIETSIDE,  > 

Oberlin,  July  20,  1859.  > 


HI  S  T  O  E  Y 


THE  OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


CHAPTER    FIRST. 


THE  modest  village  of  WELLINGTON,  which 
of  late  seems  to  have  had  greatness  —  or,  better, 
perhaps,  notoriety  —  thrust  upon  it,  is  by  no 
means  a  locality  of  pretentious  claims.  It  is  a 
plain,  thriving  village,  in  a  flourishing  and  pop 
ulous  township  of  the  same  name,  and  lies  upon 
the  Cleveland,  Columbus,  and  Cincinnati  Rail 
Road,  thirty-six  miles  south-west  of  the  city  first 
named.  It  is,  therefore,  within  the  bounds  of 
that  part  of  Northern  Ohio  widely  known  as 
the  "  Connecticut  Western  Reserve,"  which 
was  first  settled  some  forty-five  or  fifty  years 
ago  by  the  representatives  of  Puritan  New 
England,  and  has  ever  since  been  noted  for  the 
characteristics  of  the  men  who  founded  and 
shaped  its  social,  politicaj,  and  religious  insti 
tutions. 

OBERLIN  is  a  village  of  some  3,000  perma 
nent  inhabitants,  to  which,  for  nine  months  in 
the  year,  may  be  added  800  students,  who  seek 
the  advantages  afforded  in  the  various  depart 
ments,  academic,  collegiate,  and  theological,  of 
OBERLIN  COLLEGE.  It  lies  upon  the  South 
ern  Division  of  the  Cleveland  and  Toledo  Rail 
Road,  nine  miles  due  north  of  Wellington,  and 
thirty-three  miles  nearly  west  of  Cleveland. 
Both  these  communities  are  within  the  county 
of  Lorain,  of  which  the  village  of  Elyria,  six 
teen  miles  distant  from  Wellington  and  eight 
from  Oberlin,  is  the  county  seat. 

1 


THE  RESCUE  has  been  variously  called,  m 
different  prints,  "  The  Oberlin  Rescue,"  "  The 
Wellington  Rescue,"  and  "  The  Oberlin- Wel 
lington  Rescue."  It  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that 
the  alleged  fugitive  was  a  resident  of  Oberlin, 
was  arrested  near  home,  and  taken  to  Welling 
ton,  whence,  with  the  aid  of  friends,  he  is  said 
to  have  made  his  escape.  These  friends  were 
from  Oberlin  as  well  as  from  Wellington,  and 
very  naturally,  perhaps,  the  Oberlin  friends 
were  the  more  active  in  his  behalf.  But  since 
the  locality  of  THE  RESCUE  was  Wellington, 
it  seems  natural,  without  entering  into  any  com 
parative  analysis  of  the  assistance  contributed 
by  the  citizens  of  either  place  to  the  release  of 
our  hero,  to  denominate  it,  as  for  the  purposes 
of  this  volume  we  shall,  "THE  OBERLIN- WEL 
LINGTON  RESCUE." 

Before  ushering  the  reader  into  the  labyrin- 
thical  mazes  of  this  necessarily  multitudinous 
volume,  benevolence  would  seem  to  dictate  an 
outline  sketch  of  the  ground  which  is  so  dis 
connectedly  and  repetitiously  beaten  by  the 
thousand  feet  of  witnesses,  counsel,  court,  and 
compiler,  in  the  progress  of  these  pages. 

Know,  then,  gentle  reader,  that  some  time  in 
the  month  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-six,  we 
are  told  that  a  negro  slave,  called  John,  about 
eighteen  years  of  age,  was  missing  from  the 


HISTORY    OF   THE 


plantation  of  IVJr.  John  G.  Bacon,  a  citizen  of 
the  northern  part  of  Mason  county,  Kentucky. 
Late  in  August,  1858,  Mr.  Anderson  Jennings, 
a  neighbor  and  personal  friend  of  this  bereaved 
planter,  taking  a  northerly  tour  in  pursuit  of 
some  escaped  chattels  belonging  to  his  uncle's 
estate,  to  which  he  sustained  the  relation  of  an 
administrator,  stopped  a  few  days  in  Oberlin, 
and  whilo  there  became  possessed  of  information 
which  inyli'ced  bmv  to  vrire'?,t'once  to  his  friend 
Bacon  that  the  long  lost  John  wa,s  undoubtedly 
ih'.OberliK,  'ancj  tiai;  with  .the/, assistance  of  a 
witness' arid  the  authority  of  a  power  of  attor 
ney,  the  writer  would  quite  likely  be  able  to 
capture  and  return  him  to  the  domestic  hearth. 
Omitting  intervening  details,  let  it  suffice  to  say 
that  on  Wednesday  the  eighth  of  September 
folloAving,  Mr.  Jennings  found  the  wish  of  his 
neighborly  heart  gratified,  by  pressing  the  hand 
of  Richard  P.  Mitchell,  a  gentleman  whom  he 
had  known  as  an  employee  of  Mr.  Bacon,  and 
receiving  at  his  hand  a  document  purporting  to 
be  a  duly  drawn  and  certified  power  of  attor 
ney,  authorizing  Anderson  Jennings  to  capture 
and  return  to  the  State  of  Kentucky,  one  negro 
slave  called  John,  who,  owing  service  to  John 
G.  Bacon  in  said  State,  had  unlawfully,  know 
ingly,  and  willingly  escaped  therefrom — together 
with  the  assurance  that  he,  Mr.  Mitchell,  could 
identify  the  truant  beyond  the  possibility  of 
mistake.  To  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  Mr. 
Jennings  next  day  took  the  cars  for  Columbus, 
possibly  not  being  aware  that  he  was  travelling 
from  one  judicial  district  into  another,  and  ob 
tained  a  warrant  from  one  Sterne  Chittenden  of 
that  place,  who  certifies  himself  to  be  a  U.  S.  Com 
missioner,  and  authorized  by  an  act  of  Congress 
approved  Sept.  18,  1850,  to  issue  such  war 
rants, —  commanding  the  U.  S.  Marshal,  or 
any  deputy  U.  S.  Marshal  of  the  Southern 
District  of  Ohio,  to  apprehend,  etc.,  the  boy 
John ;  which  warrant  was  intrusted  for  execu 
tion  to  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  who  is  said  to  be  a 
deputy  of  the  U.  S.  Marshal  for  the  said  South 
ern  District.  Mr.  Lowe  engaged  the  assistance 
of  Samuel  Davis,  Esq.,  an  acting  Deputy-Sheriff 
of  Franklin  county,  and  the  trio  set  out  for 
Oberlin,  where  they  arrived  on  the  evening  of 
Friday. 

The  suspicions  of  the  good  people  of  Oberlin 
having  been  aroused  by  the  strange  conduct  of 
Mr.  Jennings  during  his  previous  protracted 


stay  at  the  Russia  House,  and  the  colored  peo 
ple  having  become  alarmed  for  their  personal 
safety,  by  an  attempt  only  a  few  days  before  to 
kidnap  at  midnight  an  entire  family,  Mr.  Jen 
nings  and  his  party,  as  he  tells  us,  were  advised 
by  their  landlord  and  other  sympathizing 
friends,  that  an  attempt  at  arrest  within  the 
bounds  of  the  village  might  not  impossibly  be 
attended  with  difficulties,  and  perhaps  fail  of 
complete  success.  Inquiry  for  "  a  man  whom 
a  fellow  could  put  confidence  in,"  to  quote  the 
gentleman's  own  affecting  words,  introduced 
him  to  the  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Lewis  D.  Boyn- 
ton,  a  gentleman-farmer,  whose  residence  is 
some  three  miles  north  of  the  College.  As  the 
result  of  a  visit  extending  from  Saturday  even 
ing  to  Sabbath  evening,  a  son  of  this  Mr. 
Boynton,  aged  thirteen  years,  and  bearing  no 
less  a  name  than  that  of  the  Bard  of  Avon, 
was  engaged  for  a  stipulated  price  to  decoy 
John  into  a  ride  out  of  town  the  next  day,  and 
at  a  specified  place  to  deliver  him  into  the  bosom 
of  his  old  friends,  who  had  so  long  sought  him 
sorrowing. 

This  plan,  after  a  slight  amendment,  proved 
successful,  and  John  was  arrested  on  Monday, 
the  13th  of  September,  at  about  11  o'clock,  A. 
M.,  some  one  and  three  fourths  miles  north-east 
of  Oberlin,  by  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  Richard  P. 
Mitchell,  and  Samuel  Davis;  Mr.  Jennings 
prudently  declining  to  expose  the  head  of  the 
expedition  to  unnecessary  peril. 

The  successful  posse,  with  their  prisoner,  took 
a  road  which  passed  at  a  safe  distance  to  the 
east  of  Oberlin  toward  Wellington,  where  in 
due  time  they  arrived,  and  took  quarters  at  the 
hospitable  house  of  one  Wadsworth,  at  that 
time  the  proprietor  of  the  Wadsworth  House. 
Young  Shakespeare,  returning  from  the  place 
of  capture  to  the  Russia  House,  hastened  to  re 
lieve  Mr.  Jennings's  painful  anxieties,  and  was 
rewarded  with  twice  the  promised  fee.  Making 
a  hasty  and  slender  meal,  as  we  may  well  sup 
pose,  Mr.  Jennings  was  soon  being  rapidly  ex 
pressed  toward  Wellington,  his  affectionate 
heart  overflowing  with  a  tumult  of  the  tcnder- 
est  emotions  at  the  prospect  of  once  more 
embracing  his  long-fost  sable  friend,  and  speed 
ily  restoring  him  to  home  and  happiness. 

But  the  ways  of  Providence  are  inscrutable. 

As  Marshal  Lowe  and  his  party  were  entering 
Pittsfield  on  their  way  Wellington-ward,  two 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


3 


young  men  met  them.  These  young  men  has 
tened  to  Oberlin  with  a  description  of  the  party, 
and  a  few  moments  sufficing  to  ascertain  that 
John  was  missing  —  that  he  had  been  last  seen 
driving  toward  New  Oberlin  with  Shakespeare 
Boynton — that  Shakespeare  had  returned  with 
out  him —  and  that  the  Southerners  had  all 
left  town  —  an  intense  excitement  seems  to 
have  become  manifest,  and  to  have  taken  the 
shape  of  pursuing  parties.  A  large  crowd 
lingered  about  the  hotel  until  late  in  the  after 
noon,  and  then  suddenly  dispersed.  What 
happened  and  what  did  not  happen  inside  this 
crowd  and  between  it  and  the  parties  having 
John  in  custody,  the  reader  must  glean  as  best 
he  can  from  the  testimony.  He  will  find  much 
that  is  contradictory,  some  things  impossible, 
some  improbable,  and  some,  we  think,  worthy 
of  credit,  there  stated ;  all  of  which  has  with 
much  care  and  labor  been  written  out  from  the 
witnesses'  mouths  for  his  eye,  and  is  submitted 
to  him  as  a  member  of  that  Great  Jury,  before 
which  all  prisoners  are  tried,  and  to  which  they 
look  for  condemnation  or  acquittal  with  far 
greater  anxiety  than  to  the  twelve  men  who 
render  the  special  verdict  in  Court 

THE  GRAND  JURY.  So  flagrant  a  protec 
tion  of  the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  a  Free  State 
may  well  be  supposed  to  have  appealed  in  no 
uncertain  tones  to  the  powers  that  be  —  id  est 
of  course,  the  Federal  Administration.  The 
U.  S.  District  and  Circuit  Court  for  the  North 
ern  District  of  Ohio  straightway  assembles  a 
Grand  Jury,  and  the  Judge  thereof  breaks  to 
them  his  woes  in  the  following  painful  strains  : 

"  He  remarked,  that  in  consequence  of  oc 
currences  which  had  recently  transpired  in  an 
adjoining  county,  he  had  been  requested  by  the 
District-Attorney  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Jury  to  this  act  of  Congress.  He  said  this  sec 
tion  prohibits  the  obstruction  of  every  species 
of  process,  legal  or  judicial,  whether  issued  by 
a  Court  in  session,  or  a  Judge,  or  a  United 
States  Circuit  Court  Commissioner,  acting  in 
the  due  administration  of  this  law  of  the  United 
States.  It  matters  not  whether  the  warrant  is 
being  served  by  the  United  States  Marshal 
himself,  his  deputies,  or  any  one  else  lawfully 
empowered  to  serve  such  writ. 

u  The  offence  of  obstructing  process  does  not 
necessarily  consist  of  acts  of  rude  violence.  It 
may  consist  in  refusing  to  give  up  possession,  or 
opposing,  or  obstructing  the  execution  of  the 
writ  by  threats  of  violence,  which  it  is  in  his 
power  to  enforce,  and  thus  preventing  the  offi- 


er  from  executing  his  writ.  To  warrant  the 
charge,  however,  of  unlawfully  obstructing  the 
arrest  of  a  fugitive  from  labor,  some  act  of  in 
terference  on  the  part  of  the  person  accused 
must  be  proved,  tending  to  impair  the  right  of 
recaption  secured  by  the  statute.  Mere  ob 
struction,  hinderance,  or  interruption  is  no  of 
fence  unless  made  to  prevent  a  seizure  in  the 
irst  instance,  or  a  recaption  in  case  of  escape. 
Yet  it  is  not  necessary,  to  constitute  an  obstruc 
tion  in  the  sense  of  the  term  used  in  the  statute, 
that  force  or  violence  should  be  actually  resort 
ed  to,  to  defeat  an  arrest.  The  refusal  to  per 
mit  an  arrest  on  the  premises  of  another,  after 
notice  that  the  person  sought  to  be  taken  is  a 
fugitive  from  labor,  and  a  demand  of  permis 
sion  to  arrest  such  person  is,  under  the  law,  an 
obstruction.  And  so  is  the  removal  of  the  al 
leged  fugitive  by  the  direction  of  another,  when 
done  to  prevent  an  arrest.  And  this  is  for  the 
reason  that  the  officer,  in  executing  the  writ,  is 
under  no  obligation  to  commit  a  trespass  or  a 
breach  of  the  peace  in  carrying  out  his  pur 
pose. 

"  There  are  some  who  oppose  the  execution 
of  this  law  from  a  declared  sense  of  conscien 
tious  duty.  There  is,  in  fact,  a  sentiment  prev 
alent  in  the  community  which  arrogates  to 
human  conduct  a  standard  of  right  above,  and 
independent  of,  human  laws ;  and  it  makes  the 
CONSCIENCE  of  each  individual  in  society  the 
TEST  of  his  own  ACCOUNTABILITY  to  the  laws 
of  the  land. 

"  While  those  who  cherish  this  dogma  claim 
and  enjoy  the  protection  of  the  law  for  their 
own  lives  and  property,  they  are  unwilling  that 
the  law  should  be  operative  for  the  protection 
of  the  constitutional  rights  of  others.  It  is  a 
sentiment  semi-religious  in  its  development,  and 
is  almost  invariably  characterized  by  intoler 
ance  and  bigotry.  The  LEADERS  of  those  who 
acknowledge  its  obligations  and  advocate  its 
sanctity  are  like  the  subtle  prelates  of  the  dark 
ages.  They  are  versed  in  all  they  consider 
useful  and  sanctified  learning  —  trained  in  cer 
tain  schools  in  New  England  to  manage  words, 
they  are  equally  successful  in  the  social  circle 
to  manage  hearts;  seldom  superstitious  them 
selves,  yet  skilled  in  practising  upon  the  super 
stition  and  credulity  of  others  —  FALSE,  as  it 
is  natural  a  man  should  be  whose  dogmas  im 
pose  upon  all  who  are  not  saints  according  to 
HIS  CREED  the  necessity  of  being  hypocrites  — 
SELFISH,  as  it  is  natural  a  man  should  be  who 
claims  for  himself  the  benefits  of  the  law  and 
the  right  to  violate  it,  thereby  denying  its  pro 
tection  to  others  —  more  attached  to  his  own 
peculiar  theories  of  government  than  to  his 
country,  and  constantly  striving  to  guide  the 
politics  of  the  nation  with  a  view  of  overthrow 
ing  the  Constitution  and  establishing  instead  a 
Utopian  government,  or  rather  no  government 
at  all,  if  based  on  the  Federal  Union. 

"  Gentlemen,  this  sentiment  should  find  no 
place  or  favor  in  the  Grand-Jury  room.  Its 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


tendency  leads  to  the  subversion  of  all  law, 
and  a  consequent  insecurity  of  all  the  constitu 
tional  rights  of  the  citizen.  The  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  may,  and  unquestionably  does,  contain 
provisions  repugnant  to  the  moral  sense  of  many 
good  and  conscientious  people.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  the  law  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such 
should  be  recognized  and  executed  by  our 
Courts  and  Juries  until  abrogated  or  otherwise 
changed  by  the  legislative  department  of  the 
Government.  Ours  is  a  government  of  laws, 
and  it  is  by  virtue  of  the  law  that  you  and  I, 
and  every  other  citizen,  whether  residing  north 
or  south  of  the  Ohio  River,  enjoys  protection 
for  his  life  and  security  for  his  property." 

The  names  of  the  gentlemen  composing  this 
Grand  Jury  were  as  follows  :  — 

Foreman,  DANIEL  P.  LEADBETTER. 
GOKDIAS  H.  HALL,  LEWIS  D.  BOYNTON, 
OTIS  REED,  EDSON  T.  STICKNEY, 

HENRY  H.  GREGG,  ANDREW  TV.  MORRISON, 
RICHARD  WILSON,  ASHAEL  MEDBURY, 
PHILO  SCOVILL,       FRENCH  W.  THORNHILL, 
ROBERT  CARRON,    JOHN  FRIEND, 
ANSON  HAYDN,        SAMUEL  CLARK. 

After  several  weeks  of  severe  labor  they 
brought  forth  bills,  whereupon  warrants  were 
issued  to  the  Marshal,  on  the  7th  of  December, 
against  the  following  persons,  most  of  them 
residents  of  Oberlin  or  Wellington :  — 


Franklin  Lewis, 
John  Hartwell, 
Abner  Loveland, 
Lewis  Hines, 
Matthew  Gillett, 
Chauncey  Goodyear, 
Lorin  Wadsworth, 
Daniel  Williams, 
Henry  D.  Niles, 
Eli  Boies, 
Charles  Langston, 
James  Bartlett, 
Robert  Windsor, 
William  E.  Lincoln, 
Jeremiah  Fox, 
John  Copeland, 
James  II.  Bartlett, 
Robert  L.  Cuinmino-s. 


John  H.  Scott, 
John  Watson, 
Simeon  Bushnell, 
James  R.  Shepard, 
Ansel  W.  Lyman, 
Henry  Evans, 
AVilson  Evans, 
David  Watson, 
Win.  E.  Scrimeger, 
Henry  E.  Peck, 
James  M.  Fitch, 
William  Watson, 
Thomas  Gena, 
Oliver  S.  B.  Wall, 
Walter  Soules, 
William  Sciples, 
Ralph  Plumb, 
John  Mandeville, 
Matthew  De  Wolfe, 


The  same  day  Marshal  JOHNSON  appeared 
in  Oberlin,  accompanied  by  a  single  attendant. 
He  called  first  at  Prof.  Peck's  study,  and  as 
gently  as  possible  broached  his  errand,  con 
cluding  with  an  exhibition  of  the  huge  packet 
of  warrants,  and  requesting  introduction  to 
such  of  the  persons  attached  as  were  residents 


of  Oberlin.  To  this,  polite  assent  was  given, 
and  the  two  set  out  for  the  purpose.  Fifteen 
of  the  twenty-one  sought  were  found,  and  ar 
rested.  The  Marshal  protesting  that  lie  felt  as 
safe  with  the  word  as  with  the  bond  of  any 
one  of  them,  and  that  he  wished  to  go  on  to 
Wellington  without  delay,  they  would  oblige 
him  by  remaining  at  their  places  of  business  as 
usual  until  the  morning  train  next  day,  when 
they  might  set  out  alone  for  Cleveland,  where 
he  would  await  them  in  the  depot,  —  it  was 
unanimously  decided,  after  consultation,  to  do 
so,  and  Mr.  Johnson  departed  in  peace.  At 
Wellington,  having  no  Prof.  Peck  to  assist  him, 
he  succeeded  in  finding  only  a  few  individuals, 
and  obtained  from  such  as  he  found  but  quali 
fied  promises  of  voluntary  appearance.  Con 
tent  with  such  success  as  he  met,  however,  he 
took  the  evening  train  homeward,  as  empty 
handed  as  he  came.  The  occurrences  of  the 
day  following  are  accurately  detailed  by  the 
correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tribune :  — 

STARTING  FOR  COURT.  —  At  10:42  this 
forenoon,  fifteen  of  the  twenty-one  residents  of 
Oberlin  for  whom  warrants  were  issued  left  the 
Oberlin  station,  amid  the  shouts  and  huzzas  of 
a  large  crowd  of  ladies  and  gentlemen  who  had 
assembled  to  see  them  off.  A  considerable 
number  of  the  most  prominent  men  of  the  vil 
lage,  including  Mayor  Beecher,  volunteered  to 
accompany  the  prisoners  and  see  them  com 
fortably  quartered  or  safely  returned.  Marshal 
Johnson  was  in  waiting  as  they  left  the  cars, 
and  pointing  the  prisoners  to  omnibuses  bound 
for  the  Bennett  House,  directed  them  to  take 
good  care  of  themselves  and  be  ready  for  a  call 
at  2  o'clock.  After  dinner,  the  Hon.  R.  P. 
Spalding,  the  Hon.  A.  G.  Riddle,  and  S.  O. 
Griswold,  Esq.,  who  had  volunteered  their  ser 
vices  for  the  defence,  free  of  charge,  were  called 
in  for  consultation.  Soon  after  2  o'clock,  the 
parties  proceeded  to  the  court-room. 

THE  TRIAL  BEGUN.  —  The  MARSHAL  read 
the  names  of  the  persons  upon  whom  he  had 
served  processes  at  Oberlin,  with  the  number 
of  the  bills  in  which  their  names  severally 
stood.  Judge  SPALDING,  acting  for  the  de 
fence,  entered  a  plea  of  Not  Guilty,  in  behalf 
of  all. 

Those  who  responded  were  as  follows  :  — 

Wo.  of  Sill. 


Name. 
John  II.  Scott, 
Henry  E.  Peck, 


Charge.  Plea. 

Rescuing. .  Not  Guilty. 

Aiding  &  Abetting.   Not  Guilty. 


OBERLIN- WELLING! ON  RESCUE. 


Name. 
John  Watson, 
William  Watson, 
Henry  Evang, 
Wilson  Evans, 
David  Watson, 
An«el  W.  Lyman, 
James  M.  Fitch, 
Simeon  Bushncll, 
James  R.  Shepard, 
Oliver  S.  B.  Wall, 
Wm.E.  Scrimmager, 
James  Bartlett, 


No.  of  Bill.     Charge. 


Rescuing. 
Rescuing. 
Rescuing. 
Rescuing. 
Rescuing. 


80  Rescuing. 
96   Aiding  &  Abetting. 

74  Rescuing. 

77  Rescuing. 

84  Rescuing. 

88  Rescuing. 

60  Rescuing. 


Plea. 

Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 
Not  Guilty. 


Pleas  of  abatement  were  entered  for  misno 
mer  In  the  cases  of  the  persons  arrested  as 
James  R.  Shepard,  Oliver  S.  B.  Wall,  and 
William  E.  Scrimmager.  James  Bartlett  was 
in  town,  but  not  present  in  the  court-room 
when  his  name  was  called.  Ralph  Plumb  was 
allowed  a  few  days  to  complete  business  en 
gagements,  pledging  his  parole  to  appear  with 
as  little  delay  as  possible.  The  representatives 
from  Wellington  are  expected  to-morrow. 

Judge  SPALDING  gave  notice  that  the  ac 
cused  were  ready  for,  and  requested  trial  im 
mediately.  The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  begged 
continuance  for  time  to  send  to  Kentucky  for 
witnesses.  Should  need  at  least  two  weeks. 

Judge  SPALDING  thought  that  citizens  of 
Ohio  might  think  two  weeks  some  time  to  lie  in 
jail  for  the  convenience  of  citizens  of  Ken 
tucky. 

The  COURT  remarked  that  it  was  not  neces 
sary  for  them  to  lie  in  jaiL  They  could  be 
liberated  on  bail. 

Judge  SPALDINO  was  not  sure  of  that,  by 

any  means.     He  was  not  authorized  to  believe 

that  all  of  them  could  furnish  bail,  and  it  was 

that  very  question  which  he  wished  settled.    He 

wished  to  know  if  bail  would  be  required. 

The  DISTRICT- ATTORNEY  said  it  would. 

The  COURT  thought  all  might  find  bail  at 

$500  each,  which  would  be  very  moderate. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD  informed  the  Court  that  only 
a  portion  of  his  clients  could  find  bail  in  any 
amount. 

Judge  SPALDING  received  permission  to  re 
tire  for  consultation  with  his  clients,  and  return 
ing,  informed  the  Court  that  no  bail  would  be 
given.  The  accused  were  ready  for,  and  de 
manded  immediate  trial.  The  United  States 
had  summoned  them  to  appear  for  trial,  and  it 
was  the  business  of  the  United  States  to  be 
ready  to  proceed  with  the  trial  without  any  de 
lay.  If  a  continuance  was  ordered,  they  were 


willing  to  enter  into  a  recognizance  to  appear 
when  called,  but  would  do  nothing  farther. 

The  Court  conferred  with  the  District- Attor 
ney. 

The  COURT  announced  that  individual  recog 
nizances  in  the  sum  of  $1,000  would  be  suf- 
icient. 

These  recognizances  were  accordingly  made, 
and  the  trial  thus  adjourned  until  the  second 
Tuesday  in  March,  1850. 

At  various  dates  within  the  few  days  follow 
ing  severally  appeared  others  of  the  arrested, 
and  entered  into  their  personal  recognizances 
as  above.  Such  were :  — 


Walter  Soules, 
William  Sciples, 
Matthew  De  Wolfe, 
Lewis  Hines, 
Chauncey  Goodyear, 
Daniel  Williams, 
Ralph  Plumb, 


John  Mandeville, 
Abner  Loveland, 
Matthew  Gillett, 
Lorin  Wadsworth, 
Henry  D.  Niles, 
Eli  Boies, 
Charles  Langston. 


THE  FELONS'  FEAST. 

An  occurrence  of  much  interest,  and  the 
next  one  of  public  concern  which  properly 
finds  place  in  these  records,  is  happily  narrated 
by  the  senior  editor  of  the  Cleveland  Morning 
Leader,  in  the  following  terms :  — 

"  FELONS'  FEAST  "  AT  OBERLIN.  —  A 
strange  and  significant  scene  for  this  enlight 
ened  and  Christian  age,  and  in  our  boasted  free 
Republic;  transpired  at  the  peaceful  and  God 
fearing  and  God-serving  village  of  Oberlin,  on 
the  afternoon  of  Tuesday,  the  llth  of  January, 
1859.  It  was  literally  the  "Feast  of  Felons," 
for  the  thirty-seven  good  citizens  of  Lorain 
county,  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  of  the 
United  States  District  Court  of  Northern  Ohio 
under  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  for  the  crime  of 
a  conscientious  and  faithful  observance  of  the 
higher  law  of  the  Golden  Rule,  sat  down  with 
their  wives  and  a  number  of  invited  guests  to  a 
sumptuous  repast  at  the  Palmer  House.  It  was 
in  the  best  sense  a  good  social  dinner,  followed 
by  a  real  "  feast  of  reason  and  flow  of  soul." 
The  entertainment  was  given  by  the  indicted 
citizens  of  Oberlin  to  their  brethren  in  bonds, 
as  will  be  seen  by  the  following 

Card  of  Invitation.  —  At  a  meeting  of  the 
citizens  of  Oberlin,  who  had  been  indicted  by 
the  Grand  Jury  of  the  U.  S.  District  Court  at 
Cleveland,  charged  with  rescuing  the  negro 
boy  John  Price,  neld  on  the  evening  of  Janua 
ry  4,  1859,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  for  the  whole 
number  of  the  citizens  of  Lorain  county  who 
have  been  thus  indicted  to  meet  for  the  purpose 
of  consultation  and  agreement  as  to  the  course 


G 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


to  be  pursued  in  the  present  emergency  and  for 
mutual  comfort,  and  lor  this  purpose  to  meet  at 
the  Palmer  House  on  Tuesday,  January  llth, 
at  2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  for  dinner,  and  such  other 
good  things  as  may  follow,  and  that  we  invite 
the  citizens  of  Wellington,  implicated  with  us, 
to  participate  on  the  said  occasion  as  our 
guests.  JAMES  M,  FITCH,  Chairman. 

JACOB  R.  SHIPIIERD,  Secretary. 

The  Indicted  Present.  —  Prof.  H.  E.  Peck, 
Hon.  Ralph  Plumb,  J.  M.  Fitch,  O.  S.B.  Wall, 
James  Bartlett,  William  D.  Scrimgeour,  David 
Watson,  Wilson  Evans,  Henry  Evans,  John 
Watson,  John  II.  Scott,  Simeon  Bushncll,  Jacob 
R.  Shipherd,  Ansel  W.  Lyman,  Oberlin;  Wm. 
Sciples,  Matthew  Gillett,Abner  Loveland,  Lewis 
Hincs,  Eli  Boies,  Matthew  DcWolf,  John  Man- 
deville,  Daniel  Williams,  Loring  Wadsworth, 
Walter  Soules,  Wellington ;  Henry  D.  Niles, 
Pittsfield  ;  Chauncey  Goodyear,  Penfield. 

This  list  embraces  all  of  the  thirty-seven  who 
have  been  arrested. 

The  balance,  we  understand,  were  away  on 
business  when  the  Marshal  came  to  arrest 
them. 

The  following  ladies,  wives  of  the  indicted, 
were  also  present:  —  Mrs.  O.  S.  B.  Wall,  J.  M. 
Fitch,  J.  II.  Scott,  James  Bartlett,  Ralph  Plumb, 
David  Watson,  II.  E.  Peck,  Henry  Evans,  John 
Watson. 

The  above  ladies  have  been  heard  to  say  that 
their  acquaintance  shall  be  renewed  at  the  tri 
als  of  their  husbands,  whenever  that  affair  shall 
occur. 

These  were  the  honored  Men  and  Women  oJ 
the  "  Felons'  Feast."  Among  them  were  vener 
able  gray-headed  men,  some  of  the  early  set 
tlers  of  Lorain  county  —  men  who  had  felled 
the  forest  and  built  the  humble  log-cabins, 
school-houses,  and  churches  of  the  wilderness 
— noble  men,  good  men,  and  true  men  —  men 
of  Puritan  and  Covenanter  stock,  of  Revolu 
tionary  blood,  of  spotless  reputation  —  indictee 
criminals !  and  for  what  ?  for  violation  of  the 
Bible  injunction,  u  Whatsoever  ye  would  tha 
others  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  unto 
them." 

At  the  table  the  Divine  blessing  was  impres 
sively  invoked  by  the  beloved  Patriarch  o 
Oberlin,  Rev.  JOHN  KEEP;  and  after  the  goot 
things  so  abundantly  provided  had  been  dis 
cussed,  Prof.  PECK  announced  that  the  "  crimi 
nals"  had  invited  SAMUEL  PLUMB,  Esq.,  t( 
officiate  as  President.  The  President  m  J 
brief  and  happy  manner  stated  the  object  o 
the  social  gathering,  and  referred  to  the  deep 
sympathy  felt  by  the  men  and  women  of  Lorair 
for  their  brethren  in  bonds.  He  said  the  read 
iag  of  letters  from  invited,  but  absent  guests 
would  be  first  in  order. 

Prof.  Peck  read  the  following 


Letter  from  George  A.  Benedict,  Esq. 

HERALB  OFFICE,       1 
Cleveland,  Jan.  11,  1859.  j 

Prof.  PECK  AND  OTHERS,  Com. —  Gentle- 
nen :  At  the  latest  moment  I  am  compelled  to 
decline  your  polite  invitation  to  your  festival  of 
o-day.  Business  that  cannot  be  postponed  is 
ny  excuse.  Allow  me  to  say  that  the  spirit 
,vhich  dictates  the  festival,  and  which  gave  rise 
o  it,  meets  my  heartiest  sympathy. 
Yours,  etc., 

GEO.  A.  BENEDICT. 

Mr.  Horr  read  the  following 

Letter  from  John  M.  Vincent,  Esq. 

ELYRIA,  Jan.  10,  1859. 

HONORED  "37."  —  DEAR  SIRS:  I  regret 
;hat  previous  engagements,  will  prevent  me 
Tom  joining  in  your  festivities  to-morrow.  My 
.icart  is  with  you,  and  any  other  "  aid  and  com 
Tort"  which  I  can  in  the  future  render,  is  a1 
your  service. 

Your  position  is  a  proud  one.  To  be  charged 
with  the  crime  (?)  of  loving  Liberty  too  well, 
enrolls  your  names  with  that  immortal  band  of 
Patriots  who  gave  us  the  "  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,"  and  the  foundation  of  a  free  gov 
ernment. 

Their  sacrifices  and  sufferings,  their  firmness 
and  resolution,  we  were  early  taught  to  admire 
and  imitate.  It  has  been  left  for  our  "  latter 
day  "  rulers  to  teach  us  that  all  our  cherished 
ideas  of  freedom  are  vagaries,  and  that  the  lib 
erty  of  the  American  Union  is  only  that  of  the 
while  man  to  enslave  the  black. 

This  will  never  do ;  such  rank  perversion  of 
God's  truth  we  will  never  allow.  We  will  say 
to  these  rulers,  as  Arnold  the  poet  said  to  Bar 
low,  who  had  been  composing  a  revised  edition 
of  Watts'  psalms  and  hymns  :  — 

"  You  've  proved  yourself  a  sinful  cretur, 
You  've  murdered  Watts,  and  spoiled  the  meter, 
You  've  tried  the  Word  of  God  to  alter, 
And  for  your  pains  deserve  a  halter." 

"  Brethren  in  bonds,"  let  nothing  drive  you 
from  the  right.  Iniquity  shall  not  always  tri 
umph,  and  reastm  and  justice  shall  not  always 
be  driven  before  might. 

"  As  our  fathers  have  fought,  and  our  grandfathers 

bled, 

And  many  a  hero  now  sleeps  with  the  dead, 
Let  us  nobly  defend  what  they  bravely  maintained, 
Nor  suffer  our  sons  to  be  fettered  and  chained." 

As  one  in  bonds  with  you,  I  remain  yours, 
JOHN  M.  VINCENT. 

Prof.  Peck  then  read  the  following 

Letter  from  S.  Burke,  Esq. 

ELYRIA,  January  7,  1859. 
GENTLEMEN  :  Your  esteemed   favor  of  the 
5th  instant,  inviting  me  to  meet  with  you  at  the 
Palmer  House  in  Oberlin  on  the  1 1th  instant, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


for  tho  purpose  of  manifesting  our  sympathy 
and  partaking  of  a  dinner  with  the  "  thirty- 
seven  criminal"  citizens  of  Lorain  county,  re 
cently  indicted  in  the  United  States  Court  at 
Cleveland,  came  duly  to  hand.  In  answer, 
permit  me  to  say,  that  I  shall  endeavor  to  do 
myself  the  honor  to  meet  with  you  and  those 
whom  you  represent,  at  the  time  mentioned. 
Circumstances  may  transpire,  however,  that 
will  render  it  impossible  for  me  to  meet  you,  in 
which  event,  permit  me  to  reassure  you  and 
the  other  accused  citizens  of  Lorain  county, 
who  may  be  present  with  you,  that  I  have  a 
deep  and  abiding  sympathy  with  the  oppressed 
and  down-trodden  race  to  which  the  fugitive 
John  belongs,  and  that  it  is  a  part  of  my  busi 
ness,  and  in  accordance  with  my  nature,  to 
resist  tyranny  and  oppression  in  all  its  forms. 
If  there  is  any  doctrine  or  creed  to  which  I 
give  my  full  and  unqualified  consent,  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  political  equality  and  individual 
freedom;  the  right  of  man,  black  or  white, 
native  or  foreigner,  to  carve  out,  under  God, 
his  own  destiny,  and  choose  his  own  rulers. 
Much  as  I  feel  ilattered  by  the  kind  manner  in 
which  you  have  been  pleased  to  refer  to  the 
fact  that  I  have  been  chosen  to  aid  in  the  de 
fence  of  the  parties  indicted  in  the  United 
States  Court,  I  am  not  insensible  of  the  fact 
that  my  known  sympathy  with  the  cause  and 
the  accused  had  much  more  to  do  with  my  se 
lection  than  any  probable  service  I  could  ren 
der  you  upon  trial.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  can 
assure  you  I  have  watched  with  much  'interest 
the  proceedings  of  the  Government  in  these 
cases,  and  have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that 
very  few  if  any  of  the  numerous  persons  in 
dicted  would  be  put  on  their  defence,  but  I 
may  be  mistaken  in  this.  It  is  said  that  "  whom 
the  gods  would  destroy  they  first  make  mad," 
and  that  symptoms  of  madness  have  recently 
appeared  in  high  places,  cannot  be  denied. 
What  may  be  determined  on,  therefore,  by  the 
ruling  madmen,  I  know  not.  Nor  can  I  tell 
what  farther  sacrifices  it  may  yet  become  neces 
sary  for  the  lovers  of  freedom  to  make,  to  ren 
der  our  own  beloved  and  beautiful  Ohio,  in 
deed  and  in  truth  the  land  of  the  free  and  the 
home  of  the  brave  —  to  deliver  our  people 
from  the  demoralizing  spectacle  of  slave-catch 
ing  and  slave-hunting  in  our  midst  —  to  render 
it  safe  for  the  humanely  disposed  among  us  to 
feed  the  hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  or  relieve 
the  distressed,  without  fear  of  Government 
spies,  or  running  the  risk  of  fines,  forfeitures, 
and  prison  bars  and  bolts.  But  whatever  the 
sacrifice  may  be,  I  feel  that  our  people  are  pre 
pared  to  make  it,  and  that  Ohio  will  yet  be 
free  —  that  when  the  panting  fugitive  from  op 
pression  shall  breathe  the  air  "and  tread  the 
soil  of  our  noble  State,  his  chains  will  fall  off, 
and  his  natural,  inalienable  rights  of  personal 
liberty,  personal  security,  and  the  right  to 
enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  own  labors  be  restored 
to  him. 


Allow  me,  in  conclusion,  to  say,  that  whatever 
aid  I  can  render  you  and  those  whom  you  rep 
resent,  either  before  or  after  Judgment,  in  or 
out  of  Court,  shall  be  freely  and  cheerfully 
given. 

I  am,  Gentlemen,  very  respectfully,  etc., 

S.  BURKE. 

To  II.  E.  PECK  and  others,  Committee, 
Oberlin,  O. 

f 

REGULAR    TOASTS. 

1st.  Tlie  Inalienable  Rights  of]\lan  —  Found 
ed  in  Nature  as  constituted  by  God,  and  well 
recited  by  our  Fathers  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence. 

Geo.  G.  Washburn,  Esq.,  editor  of  the  Lo 
rain  Independent  Democrat,  ably  responded  to 
this  sentiment.  lie  spoke  of  the  extraordinary 
fact,  that  in  the  middle  of  the  19th  century, 
American  citizens  have  met  to  ask  whether 
man  has  any  inalienable  rights.  He  referred 
to  man's  inalienable  rights,  to  the  higher  law, 
the  law  of  the  Creator  of  all,  and  to  the  hoary- 
headed  men  around  him  who  had  been  ar 
raigned  as  criminals  for  violating  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act.  Mr.  W.  declared  that  the  detested 
law  never  could  be  enforced  in  Lorain,  and 
closed  by  offering  the  following  sentiment, 
which  met  with  a  hearty  response :  — 

The  Fugitive  Slave  Act  —  Making  war  as  it 
does  upon  all  that  is  manly  in  man,  we  will 
hate  it  while  we  live,  and  bequeathe  our  hatred 
to  those  who  come  after  us  when  we  die.  No 
fines  it  can  impose  or  chains  it  can  bind  upon 
us,  will  ever  command  our  obedience  to  its  un 
righteous  behests. 

2d.  Good  Will  to  Man  —  The  best  bond  of 
Society ;  the  surest  support  of  Government ; 
and  never  more  fully  developed  than  when  at 
the  call  of  the  weak  and  oppressed  it  resists  the 
tyranny  of  wicked  rulers. 

Father  Keep  said  he  could  not  discuss  such 
a  sentiment.  \Vc  all  know  what  good-will  to 
man  means.  It  embodies  that  sweetest  element 
of  human  life.  It  is  eulogized.  Why  is  it 
eulogized?  It  is  the  best  bond  of  society.— 
What  is  the  other  part  of  the  eulogy  ?  It  is 
the  strength  of  government.  What  is  the 
strength  of  government  ?  It  is  truth,  integrity, 
charity,  humanity,  love.  This  is  the  eulogy 
pronounced  on  good- will  to  man. 

The  best  development  of  this  sentiment  is 
when,  at  the  call  of  the  weak  and  the  oppressed, 
it  resists  tyranny.  Good-will  is  forbearing,  long 
suffering,  and,  through  kindness,  heaps  coals  of 
fire  on  the  head  of  the  oppressor  ;  but,  said  the 
Christian  of  nearly  four-score,  with  the  energy 
of  '76,  there  is  a  point  where  forbearance  ceases 
to  be  a  virtue.  When  that  is  reached,  let  the 
tyrant  perish  !  [Great  applause.] 

3d.  Loyalty  to  God  and  loyalty  to  human 
Government  ichcn  it  is  loyal  to  God  —  The 
Patriotism  which  inspired  our  Fathers  and  shall 
prompt  us  and  our  children. 


8 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


To  this  sentiment  Prof.  Peck  responded.  He 
said  :  — 

There  is  current  in  society  an  idea  that  there 
is  no  patriotism  where  there  is  not  an  acknowl 
edgment  of  the  maxim,  "  our  country,  right  or 
wrong."  But  such  was  not  the  doctrine  of  our 
noble  fathers.  They  esteemed  patriotism  a 
cardinal  virtue.  They  were  to  the  last  degree 
loyal  men.  King  arid  country  never  rightfully 
asked  of  them  any  sacrifice  that  they  did  not 
cheerfully  render  it.  They  loved  to  offer  even 
life  itself  for  the  protection  of  the  realm  against 
its  foes.  But  their  loyalty  enjoined  of  king 
and  country  one  imperative  condition  —  that 
the  State  itself  should  recognize  Divine  law. 
"  GOD  and  our  country "  was  their  maxim. 
They  held  that  when  the  State  refused  the  be 
hests  of  God  by  assuming  prerogatives  which 
did  not  belong  to  her,  or  by  enacting  laws 
which  contradicted  justice,  she  did  that  which 
disgraced  and  dishonored  herself,  and  that 
patriotism  could  render  to  her  no  other  service 
so  useful  as  that  of  compelling,  by  steadfast 
resistance  of  her  usurpations,  her  return  to  her 
broken  allegiance.  So  was  it  that  they  never 
esteemed  themselves  more  loyal  than  when  they 
brought  the  Stuart  to  the  block  for  arrogating 
to  himself  powers  which  belonged  to  God  alone. 
So  was  it,  too,  that  they  thought  they  were  act 
ing  as  patriots  when  they  turned  their  backs  on 
home  because  liberty  was  restrained  there,  and 
sought  freedom  in  a  savage  land  ;  and  so  was  it, 
too,  that  they  felt  that  loyalty  itself  required 
them  to  enter  armed  protest  against  the  royal 
encroachments  on  right  which  followed  them  to 
their  wilderness  retreat,  and  to  try  the  chances 
of  war  with  Fatherland,  which  they  loved  as 
their  own  firesides  were  hardly  loved. 

And  the  doctrine  of  patriotism  which  our 
fathers  nobly  illustrated  has  come  down  to  us 
and  is  our  doctrine.  We  hold  that  our  prayers, 
our  labor,  and  our  blood  are  due  to  our  country 
when  she  needs  them.  We  mean  to  make 
patriotism  a  part  of  our  religion,  and  to  be 
behind  none  in  prompt  and  earnest  service  for 
the  honor  and  good  of  the  commonwealth.  But 
we  hold  that  the  commonwealth  can  prosper 
only  when  she  is  loyal  to  God,  and  that  when  by 
"  framing  iniquity  into  law  "  she  puts  herself  in 
the  place  of  God,  she  does  that  which  must, 
sooner  or  later,  bring  ruin  upon  herself,  and 
hence  that  we  are  no  traitors  but  rather  truest 
liege-men  when  we  declare  that  we  will  obey  no 
law  in  which  impiety  is  thus  flaunted  in  the  face 
of  Heaven.  We  cannot  obey  the  fugitive  slave 
act,  not  because  we  do  not  love  and  honor  our 
country,  but  because  we  cannot  do  that  which 
will  reflect  deepest  dishonor  and  disgrace  upon 
her. 

And  the  faith  we  have  got  from  our  fathers 
we  mean  to  hand  down  to  our  children.  We 
mean  to  rear  them  in  devout  allegiance  to  God 
and  fervent  patriotism  to  the  country  and  insti 
tutions  given  us  of  God.  We  mean  to  teach 
them  to  respect  law  and  its  ministers,  to  pro 


mote  by  every  possible  means  the  dignity  and 
well-being  of  the  noble  common  wealth"  of  which 
we  are  a  happy  part.  But  we  also  mean  to 
teach  them  that  they  will  not  be  dutiful  to  the 
State,  if  they  do  not  hold  her  to  her  duty  to 
God ;  that  they  will  be  traitors  if  they  obey 
laws  which  break  the  laws  of  Heaven. 

And  we  trust  that  they  will  have  sufficient 
self-respect  to  stand  to  such  patriotism  as  was 
our  inheritance  and  as  shall  be  their  patrimony, 
even  if  in  so  doing  they  encounter  bonds  or 
death  itself. 

4th.  Personal  Sacrifices — The  seed  of  to-day 
which  brings  the  harvest  for  to-morrow. 

Mr.  John  M.  Langston  eloquently  responded 
to  this  sentiment.  He  inquired  —  what  is  the 
work  of  the  American  citizen  of  to-day  to  ac 
complish  ?  It  is  this.  He  is  to  reinstate  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  to  reinstate 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Ameri 
can  Slavery  has  stricken  down  the  first;  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  the  latter.  Shall  we  meet 
this  duty  ?  To  do  it  we  must  make  sacrifices  — 
go  to  prison,  or,  if  necessary,  go  out  on  the 
battle-field  to  meet  the  Slave  Oligarchy.  Mr. 
L.  closed  with  the  following  sentiment :  — 

Tlie  Rescuers  of  John  Price  —  the  Rescuers 
of  Benjamin  Rice  —  the  Rescuers  of  the  Bells  — 
Their  conduct  should  immortalize  their  namea. 

5th.  The  sovereign  authority  of  the  State, 
and  the  voice  of  the  people — The  refuge  of 
American  citizens  from  the  tyrannies  of  federal 
enactments  not  sanctioned  by  justice  and  the 
Constitution. 

K.  G.  Horr,  Esq.,  ably  discussed  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  State,  and  the  voice  of  the  peo 
ple.  They  will  be  felt.  They  have  been  felt 
in  Wisconsin,  and  thirty-seven  is  a  good  num 
ber  for  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  to  com 
mence  on.  Mr.  H.  made  many  happy  hits  and 
several  hard  ones.  He  said  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  sometimes  sunk  men  below  the  depths 
of  manhood,  and  they  became  a  Dayton! 
[Much  laughter  and  applause.]  He  had  no 
sentiment  to  offer  —  he  read  the  right  sentiment 
in  the  face  of  every  man  and  woman  in  the 
assembly. 

6th.  The  Alien  and  Sedition  Laic  0/179S 
and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850 —  Alike 
arbitrary,  undemocratic,  and  unconstitutional. 
As  did  the  one,  so  may  the  other  rouse  the 
country  to  a  political  and  moral  revolution 
which  shall  restore  the  doctrines  of  Personal 
Liberty  and  State  Rights  which  centralizing 
power  has  wantonly  violated. 

R.  Plumb,  Esq.,  rose  and  said :  — • 

MR.  PRESIDENT — The  sentiment  you  have 
just  read  carries  us  back  in  our  national  history 
to  the  early  days  of  the  republic,  to  the  very 
infancy  of  our  Constitution. 

The  year  1 798  was  memorable  for  producing 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  of  federalism. 
The  alien  laws,  as  you  well  know,  conferred 
upon  the  President  the  power  to  remove,  in  a 
summary  manner,  any  alien  or  foreigner  who 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE, 


9 


might  be  deemed  by  him  unsafe  to  the  govern 
ment  —  while  the  sedition  laws  made  criminal 
and  punished  with  fine  and  imprisonment  any 
one  who  might  dare  to  oppose  any  measure  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  any 
of  its  laws,  or  to  intimidate  or  prevent  any  offi 
cer  under  that  government  from  undertaking  or 
performing  his  duty.  It  was  also  enacted,  that 
if  any  person  should  write,  print,  utter,  or  pub 
lish  any  false,  scandalous,  or  malicious  writing 
against  the  Government,  Congress,  or  President 
of  the  United  States,  or  aid  in  doing  so  with 
intent  to  defame  them  or  bring  them  into  disre 
pute,  or  to  excite  any  unlawful  combinations 
for  opposing  any  law  of  the  United  States,  etc., 
he  should  be  liable  to  fine  and  imprisonment. 
Under  this  famous  sedition  law,  Matthew  Lyon, 
a  member  of  Congress  from  Vermont,  was  in 
dicted  for  using  the  following  words  in  a  letter 
to  a  Vermont  newspaper :  —  "  Whenever  I 
shall,  on  the  part  of  the  Executive,  see  every 
consideration  of  the  public  welfare  swallowed 
up  in  a  continual  grasp  for  power,  in  an  un 
bounded  thirst  for  ridiculous  pomp,  foolish  adu 
lation  and  selfish  avarice  ;  when  I  shall  behold 
men  of  merit  daily  turned  out  of  office  for  no 
other  cause  but  independence  of  sentiment ; 
when  I  shall  see  men  of  firmness,  years,  and 
ability  discarded  in  their  application  for  office 
for  fear  they  possess  that  independence,  and 
men  of  meanness  preferred  for  the  ease  with 
which  they  take  up  and  advocate  opinions,  the 
consequences  of  which  they  know  but  little  of; 
when  I  shall  see  the  sacred  name  of  religion 
employed  as  a  State  engine  to  make  men  hate 
and  persecute  each  other — I  shall  not  be  their 
humble  advocate" 

Yes,  fellow-citizens,  this  true  man,  this  loyal 
citizen,  was  dragged  before  a  District  Court  of 
the  United  States,  upon  this  indictment  tried, 
found  guilty,  fined  $1,000,  and  imprisoned  four 
months. 

But  what  was  the  effect  of  these  laws  and  of 
this  and  kindred  indictments  and  trials  under 
them  V 

The  pen  that  drafted  the  immortal  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  was  again  wielded  by 
Thomas  Jefferson  in  defence  of  the  Declara 
tion,  the  Constitution,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States,  and  the  rights  of  the  people. 

In  1798,  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky  passed 
the  resolutions  drafted  by  Jefferson,  while  the 
next  year  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed 
similar  setiments  from  the  pen  of  James  Madi 
son.  Mr.  President,  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy 
of  the  Kentucky  resolutions  as  Jefferson  pen 
ned  them,  the  second  of  which  reads  as  fol 
lows: — 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  having  delegated  to  Congress 
the  power  to  punish  treason  —  counterfeiting 
the  securities  and  current  coin  of  the  United 
States  —  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the 
high  seas,  and  offences  against  the  laws  of  na 
tions,  and  no  other  crimes  whatever,  and  it  being 


true,  as  a  general  principle,  and  one  of  the 
amendments  of  the  Constitution  having  also 
declared  that '  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohib 
ited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  people '  • —  there 
fore  the  Act  of  Congress  passed  July  14th,  1 798, 
entitled  4  An  Act  in  addition  to  an  Act  for  the 
punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the  United 
States/  and  all  other  of  the  Acts  which  assume  to 
create,  define,  or  punish  crimes  other  than  those 
enumerated  in  the  Constitution,  are  altogether 
VOID  and  of  NO  FORCE,  and  that  the  power  to 
create  and  define  such  other  crimes  is  reserved, 
and  of  right  appertains  solely  and  exclusively 
to  the  respective  States,  each  within  its  own 
territory." 

These  resolutions,  the  whole  of  them,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  will  repay  a  faithful  perusal  by 
us  all,  women  as  well  as  men,  — because  of  the 
importance  of  the  doctrines  which  they  contain, 
and  the  appropriateness  to  the  times  in  which 
we  live. 

This  brings  us  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of 
1850. 

That  act  was  conceived  in  sin  and  brought 
forth  in  iniquity. 

The  slave  power  not  only  demanded  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Act,  but  they  also  required  the 
greatest  statesmen  of  our  land,  then  living, 
should  give  their  voice  and  their  vote  for  the 
infamous  measure  —  not  caring  that  the  voice 
and  vote  demanded  should  consign  to  infamy 
those  who  but  for  this  and  similar  debasements 
would  have  been  embalmed  in  the  grateful 
memories  of  the  latest  generations. 

But  the  Act  was  passed,  and  now  mark  the 
similarity  between  the  Act  and  that  of  its  illus 
trious  predecessors. 

The  sedition  law  of  1798  defined  crimes  un 
known  to  the  Constitution,  and  authorized  the 
Courts  of  the  United  States  to  punish  those 
pretended  crimes  by  imprisonment  and  fines. 

The  Fugitive  Act  of  1850  defines  crimes 
unknown  to  the  Constitution,  makes  it  a  crime  to 
feed  the  hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  and  help  the 
weary  traveller  on  his  journey,  and  authorizes 
the  U.  S.  Courts  to  punish  those  pretended 
crimes  by  imprisonment  and  fine. 

Jefferson  and  Madison,  those  illustrious  found 
ers  of  genuine  Republicanism,  whose  labors 
were  blessed  to  the  complete  rout  of  the  Fed 
eralism  of  their  day,  held  that  such  enactments 
were  VOID  and  of  NO  BINDING  FORCE,  and  so 
do  we,  the  thirty-seven  criminals  of  Lorain. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen — since  I  had  the  honor 
to  appear  before  the  august  tribunal  that  is  to 
try  us  in  March  next,  and  enter  my  plea  as  a 
criminal,  I  have  endeavored  to  look  over  my 
past  life  with  becoming  seriousness,  that  I  might, 
if  possible,  find  in  what  my  crime  consists.  I 
find  many  things  for  which  I  ought  to  be  con 
demned,  but  surely  the  wrong  things  of  my  life 
were  not  included  in  what  I  did  on  the  13th  of 
September,  1858. 


10 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


My  sins  of  that  day  were  sins  of  omission, 
and  not  of  commission.  I  did  not  go  to  Wel 
lington,  but  I  confess  to  you  all  (don't  tell  any 
of  "the  witnesses  what  I  say),  that  my  whole 
being  was  stirred  when  the  news  came  suddenly 
upon  us  that  a  man  had  been  stolen  from  our 
midst  at  mid-day,  and  when  the  noble  band  of 
rescuers  wended  their  way  towards  Wellington, 
my  heart  went  up  in  prayer  to  Almighty  God 
for  the  success  of  their  enterprise,  and  when 
the  news  came  back  that  in  some  way,  I  know 
not  how,  the  man-thieves  had  been  despoiled  of 
their  prey,  my  heart  went  up  again  to  God  with 
such  emotions  of  gratitude  to  Him  as  I  hope 
often  to  feel  hereafter. 

This  is  my  crime.     You  may  call  it  treason  if 


upon  American  soil,  to  make  his  presence  here 
the  occasion  upon  which  the  problem  of  per 
sonal  freedom,  that  second  revolution,  more 
important  than  the  first,  shall  be  worked  out 
by  the  American  people,  for  the  good  of  the 
world. 


VOLUNTEER    SENTIMENTS. 

By  J.  M.  Fitch.  The  Prosecution  —  Will  it 
"  subdue  "  us  ?  —  shall  it  "  clear  the  town  of 
us  ?  "  —  can  it  "  crush  us  out  V  " 

The  "  No  !  No  !  No  !  "  in  response,  "  settled 
the  question,"  and  Mr.  Fitch,  in  a  few  thrilling 
sentences,  spoke  of  his  own  indictment  for  no 
cause,  unless  for  his  "  poor  prayers  "  [laughter] 


you  like,  and  the  courts  may  punish  me  if  they  I  in  behalf  of  the  oppressed;  and  of  the  liberty- 
will  —  "  they  may  drag  me  to  prison,  and  from  1  loving  men  and  women  who  have  been  amerced 
~    let  me  die  a  felon's  death,    in  fines  and  cast  into  prison,  for  manifesting 


E risen  to  death  ;  yea,  let  me  die  a  felon's  death, 
ut  let  me  die  a  man." 
'  Fellow-citizens,  we  have  met  to-day  to  feel 
each  other's  hearts  —  to  understand  better  the 
common  impulse  that  hitherto  has  moved  us, 
and  to  prepare  for  whatever  awaits  us  in  the 
future. 

For  one  I  had  rather  sit  among  you  as  I  do 
to-day,  reading  as  I  do  in  your  calm  counte 
nances,  your  dignified  bearing,  the  puritan  pur 
pose  of  your  lives,  with  the  sure  prospect  of 
speedy  poverty  before  me,  than  to  exchange 
the  privilege  for  all  the  gold  of  California. 

Mr.  President,  we  may  well  turn  from  the 
present  to  a  glorious  future  that  awaits  us. 

Our  country  needs  deliverance  from  the  gall 
ing  yoke  of  the  Slave  power,  and  it  is  near  at 
hand. 

A  second  Jefferson  must  soon  appear  of  such 
qualities  of  head  and  heart  as  shall  enable  him 
to  take  command  of  our  noble  ship  of  State  — 
one  who  by  a  firm  adherence  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Republican  resolutions  of  1798,  will  se 
cure  to  the  States  their  sovereign  rights,  the 
people  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  lib 
erty,  and  keep  the  Federal  Government  and 
the  Federal  Courts  clearly  within  the  limits 
prescribed  by  the  Constitution. 

That  man  is  already  born,  a  man  of  execu 
tive  experience,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  has 
more  than  once  stood  upon  the  soil  consecrated 
to  freedom  by  the  ordinance  of  '87,  and 
breathed  the  free  air  of  our  own  Ohio  —  who 
shall  bring  the  good  ship  of  State  out  from  the 
rocks  and  shoals  that  beset  her,  into  the  ocean 
of  a  glorious  future  which  shall  bless  the 
world.  " 

Fellow-citizens,  God  reigns ! 

It  is  He  who  speeds  on  their  way  the  ever- 
moving  tides  of  population  from  all  the  East, 
even  from  beyond  the  broad  ocean,  to  our  vast 
unoccupied  domain ;  to  build  them  there  new 
homes,  and  yearly  as  the  swelling  tide  rolls  on, 
countless  new  altars  and  firesides  shall  be  con 
secrated  to  freedom  for  universal  man. 

It  is  His  will,  since  the  avarice  of  man  has 


active  sympathy  "  for  the  least  of  one  of 
these." 

Mr.  F.  Shipherd  was  called  out,  and  gave  as 
a  sentiment  —  The  Felons'  Feast  !  Mr.  S. 
spoke  in  high  commendation  of  the  present 
feast,  and  happily  of  ancient  feasts  in  com 
memoration  of  important  events.  He  thought 
the  present  one  auspicious,  for  Roman  history 
informs  us  that  the  best  preparation  for  suc 
cessful  battle  is  a  good  dinner  !  [Laughter.] 

Mayor  A.  N.  Bcecher,  of  Oberlin,  in  re 
sponse  to  a  call,  offered  the  following  senti 
ment,  which  was  warmly  cheered :  — 

The  Thirty-seven  Criminals  of  Lorain —  Men 
of  true  grit,  and  "  hale  fellows  well  met."  May 
we  never  fall  into  worse  company;  and  should 
the  bloodhounds  of  Slavery  again  visit  our 
county,  may  they  find  a  Wall  Plumb  before 
them,  De  Wolf  after  them,  and  get  well  Pcck-cd 
in  the  bargain. 

This  brought  up  R.  Plumb,  Esq.,  who,  after 
some  happy  pleasantry,  referred  to  the  ruthless 
murder  of  young  Brown,  son  of  the  famous 
"  Ossawatomie"  Capt.  John  Brown,  in  Kansas, 
by  the  pro-slavery  Border  Ruffians,  and  to  the 
just  retribution  which  had  since  overtaken  two 
of  his  murderers,  G.  W.  Clark  and  Martin 
White.  He  then  read  a  thrilling  letter  of  sym 
pathy  from  Mr.  John  Brown,  Jr.,  brother  of 
the  Kansas  victim,  and  formerly  an  old  neigh 
bor  of  Mr.  Plumb  in  Ashtabula  county,  upon 
hearing  through  the  papers  that  Mr.  P.  was 
one  of  the  "  honored  thirty-seven."  A  single 
extract  will  show  the  "  spirit  of  '76  "  transmit 
ted  from  sire  to  son : 

"  Friend  Plumb,  would  you  say,  (  Oh !  but 
that  would  be  Treason.'  Well,  thank  God! 
'  I  've  been  there.'  I  have  for  months  at  a  time 
had  before  me  the  brilliant  prospect  of  '  stand 
ing  on  nothing,  and  looking  through  a  halter!' 
—  The  cry  ot  '  Treason  ! '  I  have  become  ac 
customed  to  ;  indeed  it  has  become  so  familiar 
that  I  confess  I  rather  like  the  music." 

"  Step  by  step  the  Slave  power  is  driving 
us  on  to  take  one  or  the  other  horn  of  the 


torn  the  negro  from  his  home  and  thrust  him  (  dilemma,   either  to  be  false   to  Humanity  or 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


11 


traitors  to  the  Government.  If  wo  '  would  or 
dain  and  establish  Justice,'  and  maintain  our 
Constitution  not  only  in  its  essential  spirit  but 
its  letter,  strange  to  say  we  are  forced  into  the 
attitude  of  resistance  to  the  Government.  I  am 
glad  the  work  of  Judicial  '  crushing  out '  is 
progressing  not  only  out  of  Kansas  but  in  Ohio 
—  on  the  Western  Reserve,  the  New  England 
of  the  "West.  This  is  bringing  the  war  home  to 

'  The  green  graves  of  onr  sires, 
To  our  altars  and  our  fires.'  " 

Prof.  Peck  said  he  thought  he  heard  his 
name  associated  with  others  in  the  toast  given 
by  Mr.  Beecher.  He  should  return  the  compli 
ment,  and  gave 

When  those  slaveholders  come  again,  may 
we  have  a  Beecher  for  mare  [Mayor]  to  give 
them  a  trot !  [Much  merriment.] 

By  J.  R.  Shipherd.  The  Press  —  While 
we  have  so  intrepid  Leaders,  so  faithful  Heralds, 
and  so  undegenerate  Democrats,  we  fear  neither 
slaveholders  at  the  South,  nor  slave-hunters 
here. 

The  editor  of  the  Leader  was  called  out,  and 
acknowledged  the  compliment  to  the  indepen 
dent  press  of  Cuyahoga  and  Lorain.  He  re 
freshed  the  "  honored  3  7  "  with  the  sketch  of  a 
former  "  indictment "  in  Erie  county,  New 
York,  to  be  more  widely  published  in  due 
season.  It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  the  nar 
rative  was  heard  with  attention. 

The  President  said  a  descendant  of  the  old 
tyrant-hating  Covenantors  was  among  the  in 
dicted,  and  called  on  Mr.  Wm.  Douglas  Serim- 
geour.  Mr.  S.  responded  in  one  of  the  most 
effective  off-hand  speeches  of  the  festival, 
and  showed  himself  no  degenerate  son  of  the 
noble  race.  His  words  glowed  and  burned 
with  the  fervor  of  true  freedom  and  manly 
spirit.  His  venerated  father  had  sent  him 
words  of  high  cheer.  He  blessed  his  son,  and 
would  have  so  acted  himself  had  he  been  pres 
ent.  He  was  ready  to  meet  fines  and  imprison 
ment  for  such  a  son,  and  for  such  a  discharge 
of  duty  to  God  and  his  fellow  man.  Mr.  S.  was 
warmly  applauded,  and  concluded  by  offering 
the  following  sentiment :  — 

Our  Fathers  and  our  Mothers  —  Free  them 
selves,  and  beqcathing  Freedom  to  their  chil 
dren  ;  they  have  shown  by  their  words  and  ac 
tions  that  they  desire  "  Liberty  to  be  proclaimed 
through  all  the  land  to  all  the  inhabitants 
thereof." 

The  President  announced  that  he  understood 
we  had  a  Hunter  in  our  midst,  not  a  miserable 
hunter  of  the  panting  fugitive,  but  a  noble 
Nimrod  and  man,  the  Hon.  John  Hunter,  of 
Cleveland,  the  colleague  from  Columbiana  of 
Messrs.  Plumb  and  Monroe  in  the  House  at 
the  session  when  good  and  humane  legislation 
closed  the  jails  of  Ohio  against  persons  not 
charged  with  crime,  and  further  protected  the 
rights  of  the  people  by  Habeas  Corpus  ;  enact 


ments  since  repealed  by  the  slave-cringing 
Democracy.  Mr.  Hunter  was  called  out, 'and 
electrified  his  hearers  for  a  few  moments.  The 
hour  for  consultation  and  business  having  ar 
rived  ;  the  "  Felons'  Feast "  closed  with  the 
following  heartily  applauded  sentiment :  — 

By  the  Company.  Our  Hostess  —  If  Uncle 
Sam  shall  take  us  to  board,  may  we  have  her 
for  "  help  ! " 

The  social  festival  at  Oberlin  will  long  be 
pleasantly  remembered  by  those  who  partici 
pated.  It  was  just  what  might  be  expected  of 
sincere,  earnest,  devoted  men  and  women  — 
earnest,  cheerful,  orderly.  The  men  in  bonds 
were  more  closely  knit  together  by  the  associa 
tion,  and  the  opposition  to  the  execution  of  an 
unrighteous  law  is  tenfold  strengthened  by  the 
persecutions  set  on  foot  under  it.  The  spirit 
manifested  was  temperate  and  religious.  There 
was  no  railing  at  the  officers  of  the  law —  only 
denunciation  of  the  law  itself.  The  "  crimi 
nals,"  meeting  by  themselves,  appointed  a 
staunch  committee,  vested  with  full  powers  to 
make  every  arrangement  for  the  details  of  the 
defence  in  March,  and  attend  to  certain  other 
items  not  yet  made  public,  but  which  some  time 
may  be,  to  the  inconsolable  astonishment  of  a 
few  individuals,  and  their  friends,  if  they  have 
any.  The  committee  is  as  follows :  — 

Prof.  H.  E.  Peck,  Hon.  R.  Plumb,  W.  D. 
Scrimgeour,  Oberlin  ;  Matthew  De  Wolfe,  Esq., 
Loring  Wadsworth,  Esq.,  Wellington. 


THE    ARREST    OF   LINCOLN. 

On  Friday,  the  14th  of  January,  Wm.  E. 
Lincoln,  who  had  left  town  for  the  winter  va 
cation  several  weeks  before  any  bills  were 
found,  was  engaged  in  the  duties  of  a  school 
teacher  in  the  town  of  Dublin,  twelve  miles  from 
Columbus,  when  a  rap  was  heard  at  the  door, 
and  a  moment  after  two  men  entered,  who  sub 
sequently  proved  to  be  Samuel  Davis,  the  dep 
uty-sheriff  that  assisted  deputy  marshal  Lowe 
in  the  capture  of  John,  and  some  constable  of 
the  vicinity  employed  for  the  occasion.  Mr. 
Davis,  stepping  forward  much  excited,  de 
manded  the  school  teacher's  name,  and  being 
answered  truly,  declared  him  to  be  "  the  very 
fellow  he  was  after,"  and  straightway,  without 
further  explanation  of  any  sort,  produced  a 
pair  of  HANDCUFFS,  and  began  to  fasten  them 
upon  Lincoln's  wrists.  The  teacher  remon 
strated  earnestly,  but  altogether  in  vain ;  with 
many  oaths  and  immense  bluster  the  consider 
ate  officer  expressed  his  moderate  confidence  in 
abolitionists  under  any  circumstances,  and 
avowed  the  purpose  of  never  again  exposing 
himself  to  their  power :  —  the  occurrences  at 


12 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Wellington  having  proved  to  him,  as  he  hoped, 
a  •wholesome  experience  !  After  some  diffi 
culty  Mr.  Lincoln  was  allowed  to  exchange  his 
gown  and  slippers  for  coat  and  boots,  and  then 
straightway  thrust  into  a  carriage  for  Columbus. 

It  would  be  doing  serious  injustice  to  the 
witnesses  of  this  remarkable  transaction  to  make 
no  mention  of  their  conduct.  And  to  appre 
ciate  this  conduct,  it  must  be  understood  that 
the  entire  town  was  —  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  families  —  of  unanimous  political  faith,  and 
trusted  to  the  powers  that  be  as  the  adherents 
of  a  certain  religious  creed  trust  to  their  father- 
confessor.  With  a  dread  of  "  niggers  "  and  a 
horror  of  "  abolitionists  "  such  as  only  children 
trained  under  similar  influences  could  acquire, 
these  representatives  of  the  rising  generation 
had,  nevertheless,  become  devoted  to  their  new 
teacher  with  an  ardor  of  affection  and  respect 
that  manifested  itself  in  this  trying  hour  in  a 
most  decisive  manner.  Only  with  difficulty  could 
he  persuade  them  —  and  particularly  the  older 
girls  —  from  undertaking  his  defence  vi  et 
armis,  and  nothing  could  silence  the  emphatic 
expression  of  personal  views  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  in  general,  and  of  "  Sam  Davis  "  in 
particular.  It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  "  sam 
ples  "  of  the  expressions  used ;  a  lively  imag 
ination,  familiar  with  the  habits  of  a  naive 
child's  mind,  will  readily  supply  them. 

The  ride  to  the  city — -Mr.  Davis's  assistant 
was  at  Mr.  Lincoln's  instance  soon  dismissed  — 
was  not  so  pleasant  as  rides  have  sometimes 
been.  In  the  first  place  the  road  was  exceed 
ingly  bad,  and  their  progress  necessarily  slow 
to  tediousness.  And,  in  the  other  place,  a  care 
ful  comparison  of  views  upon  certain  points 
did  not  reveal  a  very  affectionate  unity  of 
opinions.  Mr.  Lincoln  having  conscientious 
scruples  in  regard  to  too  frequent  violations 
of  the  third  commandment,  was  not  always 
pleased  with  his  companion's  choice  of  lan 
guage  ;  and  Mr.  Davis,  not  making  any  pharisai- 
cal  or  other  pretensions  to  personal  piety,  it  may 
reasonably  be  feared,  could  not  fully  sympa 
thize  in  some  of  his  companion's  "  faithful  "  ex 
hibitions  of  Gospel  Truth.  And  then  Mr. 
Davis  ventured  upon  some  confidential  revela 
tions  of  "  what  he  would  like  to  do  "  with  his 
prisoner,  and  others  of  the  "  Rescuers,"  if  he 
were  not  fettered  by  the  forms  of  law ;  which, 
as  this  volume  is  designed  for  "  general  circu 
lation  "  -we  will  not  repeat.  Some  time  in  the 


course  of  the  ride,  Mr.  Lincoln  inquired  if  his 
captor  had  a  legal  process  to  authorize  the 
arrest,  and  was  condescendingly  shown  a 
"  capias  "  signed  by  Frederick  W.  Green,  Esq., 
Clerk  of  the  U.  S.  District  and  Circuit  Court 
for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio. 

The  arrest  was  made  at  about  half  past  one 
in  the  afternoon.  After  dark  they  entered  the 
Capital.  Mr.  Lincoln  asked  permission  to  be 
taken  to  some  one  of  his  several  influential 
friends  in  the  city,  before  being  thrust  into  jail, 
but  the  request  was  promptly  and  emphatically 
denied.  Arrived  at  the  prison  they  found 
Marshal  Lowe  in  waiting,  and  to  him  Mr.  Lin 
coln  repeated  his  natural  desire  to  send  for 
friends,  but  only  to  be  again  as  emphatically 
refused.  He  was  later  in  the  evening  allowed 
to  send  a  letter  to  the  post-office,  when  it  had 
become  long  past  business  hours,  and  it  was  as 
certained  that  the  first  train  for  Cleveland  left 
at  four  clock  in  the  morning,  but  this  letter 
never  reached  its  destination. 

Before  being  shown  to  his  cell,  in  the  pres 
ence  of  Mr.  Lowe  and  the  jailer,  Mr.  Lincoln 
asked  that  his  irons  might  be  removed,  since 
no  escape  could  longer  be  feared,  and  his 
wrists  were  severely  galled.  But  his  crime  was 
not  trifling  enough  to  allow  of  favors,  and  he 
was  so  informed. 

Introduced  to  his  new  quarters  and  his  new 
associates,  the  irons  were  removed,  and  he  was 
left  alone,  to  sit  up  or  lie  down  as  he  chose,  a 
liberty  of  choice  which  of  course  would  not 
have  been  allowed,  had  there  been  any  conven 
ient  way  of  withholding  it.  It  is  said  that  sup 
per  was  ordered  for  him,  but  it  is  certain  that 
none  reached  him.  Driving  the  rats  out  of  his 
straw  pallet,  and  stuffing  his  nostrils  to  keep 
out  "  a  little  "  of  the  stench,  he  was  at  length 
so  fortunate  as  to  woo  the  caresses  of  Morpheus, 
but  had  scarcely  succeeded  before  a  messenger 
came  to  say  that  it  was  car  time,  and  Mr.  Lowe 
was  in  waiting.  At  the  depot  the  Marshal  pro 
vided  his  prisoner  as  well  as  himself  with  a 
cup  of  coffee  and  a  piece  of  pie,  the  taste  of 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  avers  will  long  remain 
bright  in  his  memory.  Not  to  multiply  details, 
let  it  suffice  to  say  that  the  prisoner,  by  provid 
ing  a  livery  for  himself  and  the  marshal,  suc 
ceeded  in  finding  Judge  WILSON,  who  received 
his  recognizance  and  released  him  at  four 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

He  had  now  been  fasting  twenty-eight  hours 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


13 


(excepting  the  morning  lunch),  with  scarcely 
any  rest,  and  subject,  meanwhile,  to  such  men 
tal  excitement  as  the  occurrences  above  named 
would  naturally  induce,  and  found  himself  at 
liberty,  thirty-three  miles  from  a  solitary  ac 
quaintance,  with  twenty  cents  in  his  pocket, 
and  the  Sabbath  close  upon  him.  Consider  that 
his  health  is  not  strong,  and  a  tolerably  fair  idea 
of  the  success  of  the  Administration  may  be 
formed.  Mr.  Lowe  on  being  appealed  to,  re 
lented  so  far  as  to  lend  him  a  dollar,  which 
brought  him  to  Oberlin;  whence  friends  re 
turned  him  to  his  school. 

Shortly  previous  to  the  first  of  March,  Rich 
ard  Winsor,  indicted  as  Robert  Windsor,*  who 
was  absent  from  town  at  the  time  of  the  first 
arrests,  and  had  not  been  sought  for  since,  pre 
sented  himself  before  the  Court  at  Cleveland, 
and  asked  to  have  the  orthography  of  his  name 
corrected,  and  to  be  bound  over  for  trial; 
which  was  accordingly  done. 

*  There  are  numerous  errors  in  the  orthography  of 
the  names,  though  not  many  of  them  so  serious  as 
this :  the  compiler  follows  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  in 
this  chapter. 


Robert  L.  Cummings  was  arrested  in  Cleve 
land  on  the  5th  of  May  following.    The  remain 
ing  six  are  still  at  large.     These  are  :  — 
John  Hartwell,  James  H.  Bartlett, 

Jeremiah  Fox,  Thomas  Gena, 

John  Copeland,  Franklin  Lewis. 

About  two  weeks  before  the  day  set  for  the 
trials,  which,  as  the  reader  may  remember,  was 
the  8th  of  March,  the  United  States  District- 
Attorney  applied  to  the  counsel  for  the  defence 
for  a  further  extension  of  the  adjournment, 
pleading  private  professional  engagements  of 
importance.  His  request  was  granted,  and  the 
cases  put  over  to  Tuesday,  the  5th  day  of  April, 
1859.  It  was  agreed  that  the  case  of  SIMEON 
BusrfxELL  should  be  first  taken  up,  and  that 
the  others  should  come  on  in  the  order  of  the 
docket,  unless  by  mutual  consent.  At  the  re 
quest  of  the  counsel  for  the  defence  the  Court 
had  granted  Mr.  Bushnell  a  "  struck "  jury, 
which  is  a  panel  of  forty,  from  which  each 
party  strike  twelve  peremptorily,  and  the  first 
twelve  of  the  remainder  drawn  by  the  clerk 
are  sworn  in. 


CHAPTER    SEC  OND. 


TUESDAY,  APRIL  5,  1859.  On  the  coming 
in  of  Court,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  the 
case  of  SIMEON  BUSHNELL  was  called,  and 
the  defendant  responded  in  person  and  by 
counsel.  In  addition  to  the  three  gentlemen 
who  had  volunteered  their  legal  services  for 
the  defence  on  the  first  appearance  of  the  de 
fendants,  Mr.  F.  T.  BACKUS  now  came  forward 
in  the  same  behalf.  The  District- Attorney  as 
sociated  with  himself  Hon.  GEO.  BLISS. 

Before  the  organization  of  the  jury,  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney  informed  the  Court  that  he 
should  need  a  writ  of  Habeas  corpus  ad  Testifi- 
candum  in  behalf  of  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  a  material 
witness  for  the  government,  who,  as  he  was  in 
formed,  had  been  arrested  at  Grafton,  the 
evening  previous,  on  his  way  from  Columbus 
to  Cleveland,  by  Richard  Whitney,  a  deputy- 
sheriff  of  Lorain  county,  under  and  by  virtue 
of  a  warrant  issued  by  the  Lorain  County 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  on  an  indictment  for 


kidnapping,  which  was  found  by  the  Grand 
Jury  of  that  county  at  its  last  session,  —  and 
was  now  confined  in  Lorain  county  jail,  at 
Elyria. 

While  the  Court  had  the  matter  under  ad 
visement,  however,  Mr.  Lowe  made  his  appear 
ance,  having  been  discharged  at  an  early  hour 
on  the  bond  of  Mayor  Sampsel  [of  Elyria], 
which  was  given  as  security  in  the  sum  of  one 
thousand  dollars  for  the  defendant's  appearance 
for  trial  on  the  1 7th  day  of  May  following. 

Twenty  of  the  thirty  indicted  who  had  been 
arrested,  were  present  at  the  bar  of  the  Court, 
and  being  neither  called  on  to  renew  their  re 
cognizances  nor  taken  into  custody,  continued 
their  regular  attendance  at  Court,  until  ordered 
to  jail,  as  we  shall  see  by  and  by.  Their  coun 
sel  advised  them  that  they  were  considered  by 
the  Court  as  continuing  their  recognizances 
until  voluntarily  surrendering  them.  Of  the 
twenty  thus  in  attendance,  sixteen  were  from 


14 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


Oberlin,    and  four  from   Wellington.       Their 
names  will  be  found  in  the  next  chapter. 

THE  TRIAL  OF  BUSHNELL.  —  First  Day. 

United    States   District") 

Court,  Northern  Dis-  /-  WILLSON,  Judge, 
trict  of  Ohio.  ) 

The  United  States)  T    v  .         ,  f 

f  Indictment  for  rescuing  a 

c-  T>'  i      ii    (       fugitive  from  service. 

Simeon  Bushnell.  ) 

GEO.  W.  BELDEN,") 

U.  S.  Dist.  Att'y,    r  For  the  Government. 
GEO.  BLISS,  ) 

RUFUS  P.  SPALDING,      "1 
FRANKLIN  T.  BACKUS, 


ALBERT  G.  RIDDLE 
SENECA  O.  GHISWOLD 


)LD,      J 


V-  For  the  Defence. 


Of  the  sixteen  struck  jurors,  twelve  answered 
to  their  names,  as  follows :  — 

GEORGE  KXUPP,  Tiffin. 

JAMES  G.  HALEY,  Napoleon. 

SABERT  SCOTT,  St.  Mary's. 

EDWARD  FOSTER,  Bryan. 

DANIEL  P.  RHODES,  Cleveland. 

ANDREW  LUGENBEEL,  Tiffin. 

GEORGE  W.  SLINGLUFF,  Canal,  Dover. 

JAMES  JUSTICE,  Tremont 

CHARLES  N.  ALLEN,  Cadiz. 

JOHN  CASSELL,  Marysville. 

GEORGE  HARPER,  Upper  Sandusky. 

ANDREW  SCOTT,  Newton  Falls. 

It  is  but  just  to  all  concerned  to  remark,  that 
although  all  parties  connected  with  the  prosecu 
tion  were  notoriously  of  one  political  faith,  and 
all  parties  prosecuted  of  another,  the  Clerk  of 
the  Court,  who  had  the  making  of  the  jury  en 
tirely  in  his  own  hands,  summoning  without  re 
striction  whom  he  chose,  was  able  to  find  only 
ten  men  out  of  the  forty  who  sympathized  polit 
ically  with  the  defendants,  while  he  found  thirty 
who  sympathized  with  the  Court.  The  ten 
were  immediately  "  stricken  "  off  by  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney,  and  the  defence  allowed  their 
"  choice  "  of  the  remaining  thirty. 

A  series  of  similar  acts,  forming  an  unbroken 
chain  from  the  beginning  to  the  time  of  present 
writing,  has  doubtless  induced  the  appellation 
somewhat  widely  used  in  the  public  prints  of 
"  The  Political  Trials  at  Cleveland." 

Judge  SPALDING,  by  permission  of  the 
Court,  stated  to  the  jury  the  nature  of  the  case 
about  to  be  tried,  and  then  inquired  of  each 
juror,  whether  he  had,  in  his  own  mind,  formed 


any  opinion  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  ac 
cused  ;  to  which  each  responded  for  himself  in 
the  negative. 

The  DISTRICT- ATTORNEY  requested  the 
Clerk  to  call  the  names  of  the  witnesses  for  the 
prosecution,  which  being  done,  and  twenty-nine 
failing  to  respond,  he  asked  an  adjournment 
until  afternoon. 

Judge  SPALDING  asked  that  the  jury  might 
be  sworn  first.  The  trials  were  likely  to  be 
lengthy  enough  at  best,  and  it  was  to  be  hoped 
that  no  time  would  be  lost.  He  wished,  also,  and 
thought  it  only  a  matter  of  common  prudence, 
that  the  jury  should  be  put  upon  their  oaths 
before  going  out  to  mingle  with  the  community 
at  large,  where  they  would  be  constantly  hear 
ing  the  merits  of  the  case  discussed. 

The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  thought  an  ad 
monition  from  the  Court  would  be  sufficient 
safeguard,  and  answer  every  purpose',  in  which 

The  COURT  concurred,  and  charged  the  jury 
to  avoid  all  conversation  among  themselves 
upon  the  case  they  were  about  to  try  (as  they 
would,  of  course,  with  other  persons),  and  if 
any  approaches  were  made  to  them,  they  would 
give  immediate  notice  thereof  to  the  Court. 

And  thereupon  a  recess  until  2  o'clock  was 
declared. 

FIRST    DAY — AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

Court  convened  at  2  o'clock. 

Jury  called. 

Names  of  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  called. 
Thirteen  failed  to  respond. 

The  COURT  asked  if  the  defence  were  ready 
to  proceed. 

Mr.  RIDDLE  asked  leave  to  withdraw  tem 
porarily  the  plea  of  Not  Guilty,  in  order  to 
enter  a  motion  to  quash  ;  which  being  granted, 
the  plea  of  Not  Guilty  was  withdrawn,  a  motion 
to  quash  filed  subject  to  future  call  and  argu 
ment,  and  the  plea  of  Not  Guilty  then  resumed 
for  the  purposes  of  the  trial. 

Jury  sworn. 

Such  of  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  as 
were  present  were  then  called,  and,  after  being 
sworn,  dismissed  to  the  Grand-Jury  Room,  with 
an  order  from  the  Court  not  to  enter  the  Court 
Room  during  the  giving  of  testimony,  until  sent 
for. 

The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  then  stated  the 
case  to  the  jury  as  he  expected  to  prove  it,  by 
reading  to  them  the  indictment,  which  runs  as 
follows :  — 

United  States  of  America ) 
Northern*  District  of  Ohio  }  ss 

fin  the  District  Court  of  the 

United  States,  for  the  North- 

I     ern  District  of  Ohio,  of  the 

[    November  term,  A.  D.  1858. 

The  Grand  Jurors  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  empanelled,  sworn  and  charged  to 
inquire  of  crimes  and  offences  within  and  for 


OBERLIN-WELLIXGTON  RESCUE. 


15 


the  body  of  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  upon  ' 
their  oath,  present  and  find,  that,  heretofore,  to 
wit,  on  the  first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  a  certain  negro  slave  called  John,  a  person 
held  to  service  and  labor  in  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky,  one  of  the  United  States,  the  said  John 
being  the  property  of  one  John  G.  Bacon,  of 
the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  the  person  to  whom 
such  service  and  labor  were  then  due,  and 
the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  to  wit,  on  the 
day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  so  bein«r  held  to 
service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  and  said  service 
and  labor  being  due  as  aforesaid,  did  escape 
into  another  of  the  United  States,  to  wit,  into 
the  State  of  Ohio  from  the  said  State  of  Ken 
tucky  :  —  that  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  first 
day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-eight,  one 
Anderson  Jennings,  the  agent  and  attorney  of 
the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  duly  authorized  for 
that  purpose  by  power  of  attorney  in  writing, 
executed  by  the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  to  wit,  on 
the  fourth  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1858,  and 
acknowledged  before  him  on  said  day,  before 
Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  County 
Court  of  the  county  of  Mason,  in  said  State  of 
Kentucky,  and  on  said  day  certified  by  said 
Robert  A.  Cochran,  clerk  as  aforesaid,  under  the 
seal  of  said  Mason  County  court,  the  said  Robert 
A.  Cochran  then  being  a  legal  officer,  and  the 
said  Mason  County  court  then  being  a  legal 
court  —  in  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  in  which 
said  State  said  power  of  attorney  was  executed — 
did  pursue  and  reclaim  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John,  into  and  in  the  said  State  of  Ohio, 
and  did,  to  wit,  on  the  said  first  day  of  Octo 
ber,  in  the  year  last  aforesaid,  in  said  Northern 
District  of  Ohio,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court  pursue  and  reclaim  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John,  he  then  and  there  being  a 
fugitive  person  as  aforesaid,  and  still  held  to 
service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  by  then  and 
there  on  the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  and  at 
the  District  aforesaid,  and  within  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  this  Court,  seizing  and  arresting  him  as 
a  fugitive  person  from  service  and  labor,  from 
the  said  State  of  Kentucky  as  aforesaid :  —  and 
that  the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  was  then 
and  there,  to  wit,  on  the  day  and  year  last 
aforesaid,  iu  the  State  of  Ohio,  at  the  District 
aforesaid,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court,  lawfully,  pursuant  to  the  authority  of 
the  statute  of  the  United  States,  given  and  de 
clared  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  arrest 
ed,  in  the  custody  and  under  the  control  of  the 
said  Anderson  Jennings,  as  agent  and  attorney 
aforesaid,  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  to  whom 
the  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  of  the  said 
negro  slave  called  John,  were  then  and  still 
due  as  aforesaid,  —  together  with  one  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  then  and  there  lawfully  assisting  him, 
the  said  Anderson  Jennings,  in  the  aforesaid 
arrest,  custody,  and  control  of  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John. 


And  the  jurors  aforesaid  do  further  present 
and  find  that  Simeon  Bushnell,  late  of  the  Dis 
trict  aforesaid,  together  with  divers,  to  wit,  two 
hundred  other  persons,  to  the  jurors  aforesaid 
unknown,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  first  day  of 
October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  -fifty-eight,  at  the  District 
aforesaid,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court,  with  force  and  arms,  unlawfully,  know 
ingly,  and  willingly,  did  rescue  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John,  then  and  there  being  pursued 
and  reclaimed,  seized  and  arrested,  and  in  the 
custody  and  control  aforesaid,  he,  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John,  being  then  and  there  a  fugi 
tive  from,  and  held  to  service  and  labor  as 
aforesaid,  from  the  custody  of  the  said  Ander 
son  Jennings,  then  and  there  the  authorized 
agent  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon  as  afore-said, 
and  the  said  Jacob  K.  Lowe  then  and  there 
lawfully  assisting  the  said  Anderson  Jennings, 
as  aforesaid,  he  the  said  Simeon  Bushnell  then 
and  there  well  knowing  that  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John,  was  then  and  there  a  fugitive  per 
son  held  to  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  and 
pursued  and  reclaimed,  seized  and  arrested  and 
held  in  custody  as  aforesaid:  —  to  the  great 
damage  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon ;  contrary 
to  the  form  of  the  Act  of  Congress  in  such  case 
made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  and 
dignity  of  the  United  States. 

G.  W.  BELDEX,  U.  S.  Attorney. 

He  informed  them  that  this  indictment  was 
based  exclusively  on  the  Act  of  Congress  ap 
proved  Sept.  18,  1850,  commonly  known  as 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  which  was  passed  as 
an  amendment  to  the  Act  of  Feb.  12,  1793. 

He  would  read  that  portion  of  the  Act  of 
1850  which  authorizes  the  seizure  of  the  fugi 
tive  from  service  with  or  without  process. 

"  §  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when 
a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State 
or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  the  person 
or  persons  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or  attorney, 
duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney  in  writ 
ing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under  the  seal 
of  some  legal  officer  or  court  of  the  State  or 
Territory  in  which  the  same  may  be  executed, 
may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugitive  person, 
either  by  procuring  a  warrant  from  some  one 
of  the  courts,  judges,  or  commissioners  aforesaid, 
of  the  proper  circuit,  district  or  county,  for  the 
apprehension  of  such  fugitive  from  service  or 
labor,  or  by  seizing  and  arresting  such  fugitive 
where  the  same  can  be  done  without  process, 
and  by  taking  or  causing  such  person  to  be 
taken  forthwith  before  such  court,  judge,  or 
commissioner,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  hear 
and  determine  the  case  of  such  claimant  in  a 
summary  manner,"  etc. 

The  next  section  provides  for  the  punish 
ment  of  those  who  interfere  with  the  arrest  to 
prevent  or  violate  it :  — 

"  §  7.   And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any 


16 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


person  who  shall  knowingly  and  willingly  ob 
struct,  hinder,  or  prevent  such  claimant,  his 
agent  or  attorney,  or  any  person  or  persons 
lawfully  assisting  him,  her,  or  them,  from  arrest 
ing  such  a  fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  either 
with  or  without  process  as  aforesaid,  or  shall 
rescue  or  attempt  to  rescue  such  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor  from  the  custody  of  such  claim 
ant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  or  other  per 
son  or  persons  lawfully  assisting  as  aforesaid, 
when  so  arrested  pursuant  to  the  authority 
herein  given  and  declared,  or  shall  aid,  abet,  or 
assist  such  person  so  owing  service  or  labor  as 
aforesaid,  directly  or  indirectly  to  escape  from 
such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  or  other  per 
son  or  persons  legally  authorized  as  aforesaid,  or 
shall  harbor  or  conceal  such  fugitive,  so  as  to 
prevent  the  discovery  and  arrest  of  such  person, 
after  notice  or  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  such 
person  was  a  fugitive  from  service  or  labor  as 
aforesaid,  shall,  for  either  of  said  offences,  be 
subject  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand 
dollars,  and  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six 
months,  by  indictment  and  conviction  before 
the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
district  in  which  such  offence  may  have  been 
committed,"  etc. 

He  might  also  call  attention  to  that  clause  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
clearly  authorized  the  passage  of  this  act. 

Art.  IV.,  Section  2.  "  No  person  held  to  ser 
vice  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  conse 
quence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be 
discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall 
be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

He  said  that  he  should  show  that  this  negro 
was  rescued  by  the  defendant  and  his  associates, 
not  only  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  owner, 
and  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  agent  who 
made  the  arrest  as  authorized  by  this  statute, 
but  even  against  the  earnest  wishes  of  the  negro 
himself,  who  expressed  himself  anxious  to  re 
turn  to  the  service  of  his  master.  They  should 
further  show,  on  behalf  of  the  Government, 
that  this  defendant,  previous  to  going  himself 
to  Wellington,  got  up  a  great  deal  of  excite 
ment  in  the  town  of  Oberlin ;  hitched  up  his 
own  carriage,  and  exhorted  others  to  do  like 
wise  ;  and  when  calling  for  volunteers  to  go  to 
Wellington,  rejected  some,  saying  that  he 
wanted  men,  not  boys,  as  there  would  most 
likely  be  a  fight.  And  that  after  the  rescue  he 
boasted  of  the  success  of  the  mob  and  of  his 
share  in  its  doings,  and  avowed  his  entire  readi 
ness  to  act  a  like  part  again  on  the  first  oppor 
tunity. 

Judge  SPALDING  replied  briefly  in  behalf 
of  the  defence,  that  they  should  contend  that 
no  such  offence  as  that  cliarged  in  the  indict 
ment  could  be  perpetrated  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
so  as  to  make  the  defendant  liable  to  fine  and 
imprisonment  as  a  punishment  therefor.  The 
District^ Attorney  had  fatally  erred  in  not  charg 


ing  in  his  indictment,  in  compliance  with  the 
terms  of  Sect.  2,  Art.  IV.  of  the  Constitution, 
that  the  ne^ro  John  was  held  to  service  or  la 
bor  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  "  under  the  laws 
thereof."  The  defence  would  therefore  insist 
that  by  no  law,  human  or  divine,  did  the  negro 
rescued  owe  service  to  any  man  living ;  that  his 
arrest  was  kidnapping,  procured  by  the  use  of 
the  most  scandalous  and  fraudulent  deceit,  and 
that,  whether  the  defendant  aided  to  rescue 
him  or  not,  he  was  amenable  to  no  criminal 
statute  whatever. 

The  first  witness  called  was 

John  G.  Bacon.  Reside  in  Kentucky,  in 
Mason  county.  Have  resided  there  four  years. 
Was  born  and  brought  up  in  the  State.  Owned 
a  negro  boy  named  John  from  the  Spring  of 
1847  to  January  1856.  Do  n't  know  who  owns 
him  now.  He  is  still  my  property.  Never 
parted  with  my  interest  in  him.  He  is  still 
mine,  lone  and  flesh.  He  ran  off  from  me  in 
January,  1856  ;  he  and  another  slave  named 
Frank,  and  a  negro  woman  named  Dinah,  all 
ran  off  at  the  same  time.  They  stole  two 
horses  from  me  to  go  off  on.  I  finally  got  the 
horses  again.  Dinah  was  my  — 

Mr.  BACKUS.   No  consequence  about  Dinah. 

John  went  without  my  consent  or  direction. 
I  executed  a  power  of  attorney  to  Anderson 
Jennings. 

[The  instrument  referred  to  was  here  pre 
sented  to  the  witness  and  identified  by  him.  It 
runs  as  follows :  — ] 

KNOW    ALL     MEN     BY     THESE    PRESENTS, 

That  we,  Richard  Loyd  and  John  G.  Bacon,  of 
the  county  of  Mason,  and  State  of  Kentucky, 
do  hereby  constitute  and  appoint  Anderson 
Jennings  of  the  county  of  Mason  and  State  of 
Kentucky  our  attorney ;  for  us  and  in  our 
name  and  for  our  use,  to  capture  and  return  to 
our  service  and  possession  in  Kentucky,  three 
negroes  now  at  large  in  the  State  of  Ohio : . 

Which  negroes  answer  the  following  descrip 
tion,  viz. :  — 

Frank,  the  property  of  Richard  Loyd,  is  a 
large  black  neoro,  full  six  feet  high,  large  pop 
eyes,  rather  thick  tongued,  about  twenty-six 
years  old.  John,  the  property  of  John  G. 
Bacon,  is  about  twenty  years  old,  about  five 
feet  six  or  eight  inches  high,  heavy  set,  copper 
colored,  and  will  weigh  about  140  or  50  pounds, 
Dinah,  the  property  of  said  Bacon,  is  a  tall, 
slim  neirro  woman,  about  twenty-one  or  two 
years  old,  dark  copper  color,  very  straight, 
holds  high  head,  and  very  quick  spoken. 

Whatsoever  our  attorney  shall  lawfully  do  in 
the  premises,  we  do  hereby  confirm  the  same, 
as  if  we  were  present  and  did  the  same  in  our 
own  proper  names. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF  we  have  hereunto 
set  our  hands  and  seals,  this  4th  day  of  Septem 
ber,  1858.  RICHARD  LOYD, 
JOHN  G.  BACON. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


IT 


"f^'lsct. 
nty,     L 

L.  Cochran, 


State  of  Kentucky, 

Mason  Count 

I,  Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  Count 
Court  of  the  county  aforesaid,  do  hereby  cer 
tify  that  this  power  of  attorney,  from  Richard 
Loyd  and  John  G.  Bacon  to  Anderson  Jen 
nings,  was  this  day  produced  to  me,  and  ac 
knowledged  by  the  said  Richard  Loyd  and  John 
G.  Bacon  to  be  their  act  and  deed.  The  said 
parties  are  personally  known  to  me,  and  the 
said  acknowledgment  is  according  to  law. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  in 
the  city  of  Maysville,  this  4th  day  of  Septem 
ber,  1858.        ROBERT  A.  COCHRAN,  Clerk, 
by  WILLIAM  H.  RICHARDSON,  D.  C. 

Have  never  seen  John  since  he  left  in  Janu 
ary,  1856.  John  was  born  and  raised  on  my 
father's  farm  in  Mason  county,  Ky.  He  was 
eighteen  years  old,  about  five  feet  eight  inches 
high,  copper  color,  and  heavy  built.  At  the 
time  of  his  escape  he  owed  service  to  me,  if  to 
any  one.  Previous  to  his  owing  service  to  my 
self  he  owed  service  to  my  father  and  to  his 
family.  John's  mother  was  a  slave  and  is  still ; 
has  been  ever  since  I  can  remember.  Have 
never  relinquished  my  right  to  his  service. 
[Objected  to.] 

Cross-examined.  Father  died  in  1845  or 
1846,  leaving  myself  and  five  other  children, 
who  are  all  still  living.  Knew  when  John  was 
born,  because  I  was  then  on  the  farm  and  heard 
of  the  event  within  an  hour  after  it  happened. 
Was  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  old  at  the  time. 
Remember  I  was  at  home  at  the  time  ;  do  not 
remember  what  time  in  the  year  it  was.  There 
were  twenty  or  twenty-five  other  persons  of 
both  sexes  on  the  place  at  the  time,  who  were 
held  as  slaves.  Others  of  them  were  born 
slaves,  like  John.  Was  gone  from  home  to 
boarding  school,  more  or  less  afterward.  Do  not 
remember  how  long  I  was  at  home  after  John's 
birth  before  I  first  went  away  to  school.  Was 
away  two  years  or  so  in  all.  First  went  away 
something  like  a  year  or  two  after  John's  birth. 
Didn't  recognize  him  from  personal  memory 
from  time  to  time  as  I  came  home  from  abroad, 
but  supposed  him  to  be  the  same  because  he 
bore  the  same  name,  recognized  the  same  moth 
er,  etc.  The  boy's  mother  was  held  by  my 
father  as  a  slave  from  my  earliest  recollection  ; 
that.'s  all  I  know  of  my  father's  title  to  her. 
Also  knew  John's  grandmother ;  she  was  held, 
too,  as  a  slave.  I  was  nineteen  years  old  when 
my  father  died ;  never  purchased  the  boy ;  claim 
him  only  by  inheritance.  Was  not  at  home 
when  John  and  Frank  and  Dinah  went  away. 
Was  visiting  my  father-in-law  about  four  miles 
distant.  Had  been  gone  two  days.  Left  things 
in  charge  of  an  Irishman,  who  is  still  in  my  em 
ploy.  He  had  no  more  general  authority  than 
any  other  hired  hand.  He  and  John  had  about 
equal  authority.  Neither  could  control  the 
other.  Own  no  slaves  except  John  and  Dinah. 
-Never  did  own  any  others,  and  don 't  know  as 

3 


I  shall  get  any  more.  The  Irishman's  name  is 
Peter.  Left  *Dinah,  John,  and  Peter  when  I 
went  to  father-in-law's.  Locked  up  the  house, 
taking  all  my  family  with  me.  They  staid  in 
their  own  cabins.  They  three  were  alone  on 
the  place  when  I  left.  Dinah  is  cousin  to  John. 
My  place  is  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  the 
Ohio  river.  Ripley,  in  Brown  county,  is  tho 
nearest  village  on  the  opposite  shore.  I  live 
about  two  miles  above  the  Ripley  ferry.  Never 
heard  of  John's  going  over  that  ferry  under  any 
circumstances.  Found  the  horses  in  Brown 
county,  about  twenty  miles  from  home.  The 
niggers  had  left  them  on  purpose.  The  horses 
were  all  right  when  I  found  'em ;  did  n't  seem 
to  have  been  ill  used  in  any  way.  John  was  in 
the  habit  of  riding  them.  They  were  rather 
high-spirited.  Don't  know  whether  they  ran 
off  with  him  or  he  with  them.  Found  the 
horses  about  a  week  after  I  missed  John.  I  ex 
ecuted  this  power  of  attorney ;  signed  it  on  the 
day  of  its  date.  Jennings  was  a  neighbor  of  mine. 
At  the  date  of  this  power  of  attorney  he  *vas  in 
Ohio  hunting  a  slave  of  his  own.  He  wrote  to 
me  that  he  had  discovered  a  nigger  near  Ober- 
lin  answering  to  the  description  of  mine,  and  so 
I  made  him  this  power  of  attorney.  He  does  n't 
follow  the  business  of  capturing  niggers.  Think 
John  weighed  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  or 
one  hundred  and  sixty  pounds. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  What  was  the  arrangement 
between  you  and  Mr.  Jennings  ?  what  was  you 
to  give  him  if  he  got  John  back  for  you  ? 

Judge  BLISS  objected,  and  argued  his  objec 
tion  at  length. 

Mr.  BACKUS  urged  the  perfect  propriety  of 
the  inquiry. 

The  COURT  overruled  the  objection  and  di 
rected  the  witness  to  answer  the  question. 

Witness  continued :  If  he  brought  him  back, 
he  was  to  have  one  half  of  what  the  nigger 
would  sell  for ;  I  to  sell  him  when  and  where  I 
chose. 

The  DISTRICT- ATTORNEY  filed  the  power 
of  attorney  as  evidence,  subject  to  the  excep 
tions  of  the  defence. 

Robert  A.  Cochran,  called.  Reside  in  Mays 
ville,  Mason  county,  Ky.  Have  resided  there 
fifteen  years.  On  the  4th  of  September,  1858, 
was  acting  as  clerk  of  the  Mason  County  Court. 
Have  been  its  clerk  since  1851. 

Judge  SPALDIXG  wished  it  understood  that 
the  testimony  of  this  witness  was  received  sub 
ject  to  exceptions. 

The  COURT  assented. 

Witness  continued ;  This  is  not  my  signature. 
My  name  was  written  by  a  deputy.  [These 
statements  refer  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
power  of  attorney.]  The  deputy  was  Wm.  H. 
Richardson.  The  entire  certificate  of  acknowl 
edgment  is  in  Richardson's  handwriting.  Am 
acquainted  with  John  G.  Bacon ;  have  been  for 
at  least  the  last  nine  years.  Do  not  know  the 
negro  John.  Have  no  personal  knowledge  of 
this  acknowledgment.  Have  no  better  evidence- 


18 


HISTORY    OF   THE 


that  it  was  ever  made  than  the  handwriting  of 
my  deputy.  This  is  the  seal  of  the  Mason 
County  Court. 

[The  counsel  for  the  government  here  read 
the  power  of  attorney  and  the  certificate  of 
acknowledgment] 

Anderson  Jennings,  called.  Reside  in  Ma 
son  County,  Ky.  Was  born  and  raised  within 
about  four  miles  of  John  G.  Bacon.  Live  now 
about  five  miles  from  him.  Knew  John  two  or 
three  years  before  he  ran  away.  Had  seen 
him  ten  or  fifteen  times,  perhaps,  in  all.  Bacon 
owned  him.  I  mean  he  owned  him  as  we'd 
own  any  property.  Didn't  see  him  run  away. 
Don't  know  as  he  did  run  away.  Heard  he 
did.  First  went  to  Bacon's  without  seeing  him 
several  months  after  it  was  said  that  he  had  run 
away.  Have  seen  him  since  then.  Saw  him 
at  Wellington,  in  this  State,  on  the  13th  of  Sep 
tember,  1858. 

The  DISTRICT- ATTORNEY  :  Did  he  recog 
nize  you  ? 

Mr.»BACKUS  objected  earnestly  that  the  acts 
of  this  piece  of  property,  this  chattel,  this 
thing,  were  nothing  to  charge  the  defendant  by, 
unless  he,  the  defendant,  were  a  party  to  them. 
The  recognition  of  his  master's  agent  by  this 
chattel,  was  no  more  than  the  recognition  a  dog 
might  make  by  the  wagging  of  his  tail.  It  was 
absurd  in  the  Government  to  attempt  to  charge 
the  defendant  by  such  frivolous  and  incompe 
tent  testimony  as  was  sought  to  be  introduced 
here. 

DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  :  The  question  is  one 
of  identity.  The  question  put  to  the  witness  is, 
Did  he  recognize  you  ?  I  contend  that,  for  the 
purpose  of  identifying  this  piece  of  property,  if 
the  gentleman  prefers  that  title,  it  is  competent 
to  prove  that  the  negro  boy  came  up  to  the 
witness,  shook  hands  with  him,  and  expressed 
his  desire  to  go  back  to  his  master,  naming  Ba 
con  as  his  master. 

The  COURT  sustained  the  objection,  and 
ruled  out  the  evidence. 

The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  to  the  witness: 
Well,  did  you  recognize  him  as  the  boy  John, 
whom  you  had  known  in  Kentucky,  as  the 
property  of  John  G.  Bacon  ? 

Witness  :  I  did.  J  had  a  power  of  attorney 
from  John  G.  Bacon,  authorizing  me  to  arrest 
him.  [Taking  the  paper  offered  him.]  This 
is  the  one  given  me.  Had  this  in  my  posses 
sion  when  I  met  John  at  Wellington.  We 
meant  to  take  him  to  Columbus.  I  met  him 
first  at  Wellington,  at  Wadsworth's  hotel.  This 
was  the  first  time  I  had  seen  him  since  I  saw 
him  in  Kentucky  before  he  was  missing  in  Janu 
ary,  1856.  Met  him  first  in  a  room  below 
stairs.  Didn't  like  the  looks  of  the  room,  be 
cause  it  was  large,  and  there  was  folding  doors, 
and  there  was  no  fastening  to  the  door,  and  the 
people  began  to  gather  in  with  their  guns. 
Found  the  landlord,  and  got  him  to  give  us  a 
better  room  up  stairs,  in  the  top  story.  Lowe, 
Mitchell,  and  Davis  were  helping  me,  and  went 


up  stairs  with  us.  Moant  to  take  the  nigger 
before  United  States  Commissioner  Chittenden, 
at  Columbus.  Did  n't  take  him  there,  however. 
[Laughter.]  Don't  know  the  defendant.  There 
was,  I  thought,  as  much  as  a  thousand  people 
around  and  in  the  house.  [Great  laughter.] 
A  great  many  of  them  had  arms ;  —  rifles,  shot 
guns,  etc.  Should  think  there  were  five  hun 
dred  guns  in  the  crowd.  [Renewed  laughter.] 
First  met  John  about  two  or  three  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon.  The  people  began  gathering  in 
pretty  soon  after,  and  hung ,  about  till  purty 
near  dark.  Took  John  up  stairs  purty  soon 
after  I  first  met  him.  AVas  up  there  with  him 
some  three  hours.  Several  got  into  the  room 
up  stairs.  They  brought  in  a  sheriff,  and  tried 
to  arrest  us.  They  asked  the  negro  if  he  was 
a  slave,  and  whether  he  wanted  to  go  back ;  to 
both  of  which  questions  he  answered,  Yes.  He 
said  he  was  the  slave  of  John  G.  Bacon.  The 
nigger  and  myself  went  out  on  to  the  platform 
to  tell  the  crowd  that  he  was  a  slave,  and  want 
ed  to  go  back ;  but  there  was  two  or  three  rifles 
pointed  at  him,  and  it  skeert  the  nigger  so't  he 
went  back  into  the  house.  Purty  soon  after 
that  the  crowd  broke  in  the  window  of  the  third 
story.  I  had  fastened  the  door  with  a  rope, 
and  held  on  as  well  as  I  could.  Purty  soon 
they  come  up  the  stairway,  and  begun  to  pry 
at  the  door.  Then  the  next  I  know'd  I  got  a 
punch  on  the  side  o'  my  head,  which  went 
through  my  hat,  and  knocked  me  over. 
[Wounded  hat  exhibited.]  It  stunned  me  a 
good  deal.  They  punched  through  a  stove-pipe 
hole  that  was  made  through  the  partition,  be 
twixt  the  little  room  at  the  head  of  the  stairs, 
and  the  room 't  we  was  in.  It  was  made 
through  close  by  the  door,  and  was  right  agin 
my  head,  as  I  stood  a-holdin'  the  door.  So  I 
let  go  the  rope  when  I  was  knocked  down,  and 
they  come  in  and  took  the  nigger  out.  The 
next  I  sec  of  the  nigger  he  was  a  paddlin'  down 
stairs  over  the  heads  of  the  crowd,  as  it  seemed 
to  me.  Then  I  went  to  the  window,  and  saw 
'cm  puttin'  him  into  a  wagon  that  stood  in  the 
middle  of  the  square,  in  front  of  the  house. 
After  they  got  him  in,  the  wagon  was  drove  off 
towards  Obcrlin.  They  brought  a  man  up 
they  said  was  a  lawyer,  and  we  showed  him  the 
power  of  attorney,  and  all  our  papers,  and  fif 
teen  or  twenty  others  looked  at  'em.  We  in 
vited  'em  to  go  to  Columbus  with  us,  and  see 
that  the  nigger  lied  a  fair  trial,  and  promised 
'em  that  if  we  didn't  prove  all  we  claimed,  we'd 
let  them  fetch  him  back. 

They  said  that  was  a  little  too  fur  south 
[Laughter]  ;  they  didn't  like  to  trust  it.  I  my 
self  also  told  'em  that  the  nigger  was  a  slave  of 
Bacon.  Have  never  seen  John  since.  Ho 
went  off  at  purty  good  speed.  [Laughter.]  Don't 
think  I  heard  the  name  of  the  man  that  was  in 
the  wagon  with  him.  Can  identify  only  one 
man  that  was  in  the  crowd,  and  he  is  a  yaller 
man  they  call  Watson.  I  see  him  sittin'  over 
yonder  now.  Think  there  were  fifteen  or 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


19 


twenty  niggers  in  the  crowd,  in  all.  The 
crowd  come^into  the  room  and  seized  hold  of 
the  nigger,  and  with  pullin'  and  pushin'  took 
him  out!T  They  was  all  'round  him.  He  did  n't 
go  out  of  himself. 

Cross-examined.  Think  Bacon  has  been 
living  where  he  now  does  some  ten  or  fifteen 
years.  Am  older  than  Bacon.  Have  known 
him  fifteen  or  twenty  years.  Did  n't  go  abroad 
to  school  with  him ;  but  know  that  he  did  go 
away  to  school  somewhere ;  don't  know  where. 
Knew  the  niggers  in  my  neighborhood  better 
when  I  was  young  than  I  do  now.  Know 
Bacon's  niggers.  Bacon  never  owned  more 
than  two  niggers  that  I  knew  of.  One  of  these 
was  John,  and  the  other  was  a  nigger  woman 
they  called  —  called  —  lemmesee,  I  can't  think 
of  her  name  now,  but  it  seems  to  me  I've  heerd 
it. 

Mr.  BACKUS.  Oh  yes,  you  know  all  about 
Tier;  her  name  was  Dinah,  wa'nt  it  ?  [Laughter.] 
Witness :  Well,  I  dunno ;  but  I  should  rather 
think  it  was.  I  saw  John  hauling  sand  about 
a  year  before  he  put  off.  Saw  him  haul  one 
load.  His  marster  was  buildin'  a  house  then, 
and  they  wanted  the  sand  for  that.  Had  seen 
him  several  times  before.  Think  he  would 
weigh  165  or  170.  He  was  twenty-one  or 
twenty-two  years  old.  Knew  him  well  enough 
to  recognize  him  at  sight.  Never  made  any 
arrangement  with  Bacon  about  pay  for  ketchiii' 
the  nigger.  Never  made  no  bargain  with  him 
about  pay  no-ways.  Never  heerd  nothin*  said 
about  my'havin*  one  half  what  the  nigger  would 
sell  for.  I  set  down  at  Oberlin  and  wrote  to  him 
that  the  nigger  was  there,  and  if  he'd  send  me  a 
power  of  attorney  and  a  witness  I  would  try 
and  bring  him  back.  Did  this  out  of  pure 
neighborly  regard.  Thought  it  was  my  duty 
to.  Never  tried  nigger-catching  before.  Never 
asked  nor  was  offered  any  pecuniary  reward 
whatever.  There  was  nothing  passed  between 
us  about  reward  at  any  time,  either  by  letter, 
by  word,  or  by  third  parties.  What  I  did  I 
did  all  out  of  pure  neighborly  regard.  Went 
to  Oberlin  after  a  nigger  of  my  own.  I  wrote 
the  letter  a  day  or  two  after  I  got  to  Oberlin, 
and  directed  it  to  Mr.  Reynolds,  and  directed 
him  to  send  it  out  to  Mr.  Bacon'.  He  sent  Mr. 
Mitchell  at  once  with  the  power  of  attorney.  I 
met  Mitchell  first  at  Sandusky.  I  started  from 
Sandusky  to  go  home,  and  reached  home,  and 
saw  Mr.  Bacon.  He  told  me  that  he  had  sent 
Mitchell,  and  that  Mitchell  had  just  started, 
and  must  have  passed  me  on  the  river.  So  I 
started  back  and  overtook  Mitchell  at  Oberlin. 
Arrived  at  Oberlin  on  the  Friday  immediately 
preceding  the  Monday  of  the  Rescue,  which 
was  the  13th  of  September ;  so  the  Friday 
must  have  been  the  —  the  —  tho  —  10th. 
Found  Mitchell,  and  asked  him  if  he  had  seen 
the  nigger.  He  said  he  had.  Put  up  at  Wack's 
tavern,  and  found  Mitchell  there.  So  the  next 
morning  I  took  the  cars  for  Columbus,  and 
found  Lowe  out  of  the  city  on  the  Fair  Ground. 


He  went  into  the  city  with  me,  and  found  Mr. 
Chittenden.  Mr.  Chittenden  give  us  a  war 
rant.  Lowe  and  I  then  come  back  to  Oberlin. 
Got  there  about  ten  or  eleven  o'clock  at  night. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  What  day  was  this  ? 

Witness  :  This  was  Friday. 

Mr.  BACKUS:  But  you  went  away  on  Satur 
day;  it  seems  to  me  you  must  have  made  pretty 
good  time !  [Laughter.] 

Witness :  No ;  I  was  mistaken.  Friday 
night  was  the  night  I  got  back  from  Columbus. 
I  must  have  got  back  from  Kentucky  before 
that.  Saturday  all  day  didn't  do  much  of 
any  thing.  Saturday  night  we  went  —  me 
and  Lowe  —  to  Gen.  Boynton's.  There  we 
made  an  arrangement  with  the  General's 
little  boy  to  come  and  get  the  nigger  out  of 
town,  away  from  his  house.  The  General 
was  n't  in  the  room  when  we  made  the  bargain 
with  the  boy,  but  I  told  him  what  I  wanted  the 
boy  for,  and  he  made  no  objections.  After  I 
had  made  the  arrangements  with  the  boy  I 
told  him  of  it  agin,  and  he  said  me  and  the  boy 
must  make  our  own  arrangements ;  they  was 
nothin'  to  him ;  the  boy  was  capable  of  lookin' 
out  for  himself. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  How  did  you  come  to  go  to 
Boynton's  ? 

Witness :  Wai,  we  was  told  that  it  would  be 
dangerous  to  undertake  to  arrest  the  nigger  in 
that  town ;  so  I  went  to  old  Mr.  Warren,  and 
asked  him  if  he  knowed  of  any  one  a  man 
could  put  confidence  in  [great  laughter],  and 
he  told  me  I  could  trust  Boynton. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  Who  told  you  that  there  was 
danger  ? 

Witness:  I  heard  a  good  many  talking 
about  it ;  Mr.  Warren  for  one. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  So  you  heard  Mr.  Warren 
say  there  was  danger,  and  so  went  to  him  for 
counsel.  Well,  what  was  the  arrangement 
between  you  and  the  boy  Boynton  ? 

Witness :  I  engaged  the  boy  to  go  and  hire 
the  nigger  to  come  and  dig  potatoes  on  his 
father's  farm,  and  if  he  brought  the  nigger  I 
was  to  give  him  $20. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  Well,  then,  you  told  the  old 
man  what  you  had  promised  the  boy  ? 

Witness :  No,  I  did  n't  tell  him  any  thing 
about  it. 

Mr.  BACKUS:  What,  sir!  do  you  remem 
ber  what  you  told  me  within  the  last  fifteen 
minutes  ? 

Witness:  Wai,  I  only  told  him  I  had  got 
the  boy  to  come  down,  I  did  n't  tell  him  what 
for,  and  he  said  me  and  the  boy  must  fix  it  up 
between  us,  he  had  nothin'  to  do  with  the  boy's 
doins.  I  never  made  the  old  man  Boynton 
any  offer  for  his  help.  He  knowed  what  I  was 
goin'  to  use  his  boy  for,  for  I  told  him  myself 
before  I  said  any  thing  to  the  boy.  Then  me 
and  Lowe  went  back  to  Oberlin.  This  was 
Sunday,  towards  night.  The  boy  was  to  come 
down  on  Monday  morning,  and  see  if  he  could 
hire  the  nigger  to  dig  the  potatoes,  and  after  he 


20 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


had  seen  the  nigger  he  was  to  come  and  tell  us 
whether  the  nigger  would  go  or  not.  So  the 
next  mornin'  he  come  and  told  us  that  the 
nigger  said  he  could  n't  go,  for  Frank  had  got 
cut,  and  he  must  stay  and  take  care  of  him,  — 
I  wanted  to  get  Frank  too — but  that  there 
was  a  nigger  down  at  New  Oberlin  that  he 
thought  would  go  and  dig  the  potatoes,  and  he 
would  go  with  Shakespeare  and  help  him  find 
that  nigger.  So  we  told  Shakespeare  that 
would  do,  and  he  went  back  with  his  buggy  and 
took  John  in,  and  in  about  fifteen  minutes  Mr. 
Lowe,  and  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  Mr.  Davis  started 
on  after  him,  I  staid  at;  Wack's  till  Shake 
speare  come  and  told  me  that  they'd  got  him. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  Did  Shakespeare  tell  you 
how  they  took  him  ? 

Witness :  Yes  ;  he  said  about  a  mile  and  a 
half  or  two  miles  out  of  town  they  overtook 
him,  and  drove  alongside  of  his  buggy,  and 
then  they  took  the  nigger  out  of  his  buggy  and 
put  him  into  theirn,  and  drove  off  with  him. 

Mr.  BACKUS  :  Did  you  give  him  the  $20  ? 

Witness:  Yes,  sir;  I  gin  him  the  $20,  and 
got  my  dinner,  and  started  for  Wellington.  I 
hired  Mr.  Wack's  buggy,  and  he  sent  a  boy 
down  with  me  to  bring  the  buggy  back.  I 
started  about  one  o'clock.  Don't  know  whose 
horse  and  buggy  Shakespeare  had;  supposed 
it  was  his  daddy's.  Paid  the  boy  in  good 
money ;  don't  remember  what  sized  bills.  Saw 
no  fire-arms  along  the  road.  Had  two  pistols 
in  my  pocket. 

Court  adjourned  till  next  morning  at  9 
o'clock. 

SECOXD  DAY.  —  9  A.  M. 

Anderson  Jennings.  Cross-examination  con 
tinued.  Have  had  no  conversation  with  Bacon 
since  adjournment  of  Court  yesterday.  He 
told  me  in  our  conversation  before  I  came 
after  Mitchell,  that  he  had  said  he  would  give 
$500,  or  one  half  the  value  of  the  nigger  to 
any  one  that  would  catch  him  and  bring  him 
back.  Never  saw  the  nigger  after  he  run  off 
till  I  saw  him  at  Wellington.  Had  two  pistols 
with  me.  [Witness  showed  one  of  them,  a 
five-shooter,  and  said  the  other  was  precisely 
like  it.]  Had  no  other  weapons.  Had  two 
pairs  of  handcuffs.  [The  Court  ruled  out  the 
evidence  with  respect  to  handcuffs.]  Never 
informed  any  one  at  Oberlin  of  my  business 
except  under  injunction  of  secrecy.  Stopped 
nowhere  between  Oberlin  and  Wellington. 
Stopped  at  Wadsworth's  hotel  in  Wellington. 
Found  a  good  many  people  there.  Did  n't  know 
any  of  them.  Found  Lowe,  Davis,  and  the 
boy  John  in  the  hotel.  Found  them  in  a  room 
on  the  first  or  second  floor.  Found  where  to 
go  by  the  people  crowding  up  the  steps  around 
the  door.  Fifty  or  sixty  persons  were  about. 
Didn't  see  the  defendant.  The  hall  below 
stairs,  and  hall  above  were  full  with  them. 
Had  hard  work  to  get  up  stairs.  Not  sure 
whether  I  found  John  on  the  first  or  second 


floor,  but  think  it  was  the  second.  Don't 
know  whether  the  stairs  landed  in  a  hall  or  in 
a  room^  but  had  to  pass  through  a  door  after 
reaching  the  top  of  the  stairs.  Spoke  to  them 
that  were  inside,  and  they  let  me  in.  Had  no 
occasion  to  show  weapons  going  up.  Said 
nothing  to  the  people  in  the  halls  or  on  the 
stairs.  Saw  the  people  crowding  in  with  guns, 
asking  for  the  men  that  had  John,  and  didn't 
stop  to  talk  long !  [Laughter.]  Crowd  made 
no  opposition  to  my  going  up.  The  room  in 
which  John  was  had  no  good  fastening,  so  I 
asked  the  boys  [Lowe,  Davis,  and  Mitchell]  if 
we  could  n't  get  a  better  room.  Landlord  soon 
came  in  and  I  asked  him.  So  he  showed  us 
up  stairs.  Crowd  made  no  resistance  or  dem 
onstration  of  any  kind  as  we  passed  through 
the  hall.  Landlord  led  the  way.  Think  I 
was  next;  all  went  out  together.  As  many 
as  two  could  go  up  the  second  stairs  abreast. 
Am  not  positive  whether  I  found  John  on  the 
first  or  second  floor.  At  the  top  of  this  second 
flight  of  stairs,  the  landlord  showed  us  a  safer 
room.  Went  in.  Took  my  stand  at  the  door. 
Landlord  left  without  going  into  the  room. 
Lowe,  Davis,  Mitchell,  John,  and  self  staid. 
Staid  till  about  dusk.  It  was  a  front  room. 
Recollect  only  one  window.  The  window 
looked  out  upon  the  public  square.  Heard 
nothing  from  the  crowd  below  distinctly  enough 
to  make  out  words.  Some  men  came  pretty 
soon  and  asked  us  to  let  them  in.  First  along 
I  let  in  every  one  that  wanted  to  come  in. 
The  first  that  wanted  to  come  in,  come  within 
fifteen  minutes  after  we  got  in.  They  come  in 
about  two  or  three  to  a  time.  Would  come 
and  rap  and  ask  if  they  might  come  in.  I  would 
ask  'em  how  many  there  was,  and  they  would 
say,  "  two,"  or  "  three,"  or  "  four,"  as  it  hap 
pened  to  be,  and  then  I  would  let  them  in. 
l)id  n't  see  defendant  there.  Did  n't  see  him 
at  all  during  the  day.  The  sheriff  come  and 
wanted  us  to  show  our  authority  for  taking  that 
boy.  We  showed  him  our  papers.  He  staid 
some  time  and  talked  about  arresting  us. 
This  was  about  an  hour  after  I  got  there. 
Sheriff  passed  out  and  in  several  times.  He 
went  away  the  last  time  within  an  hour  of  the 
time  he  first  came.  After  the  sheriff  he  come 
in  and  talked  so  about  arresting  us,  concluded 
I  would  n't  let  in  no  more,  'cept  such  as  had  a 
right  to  come  in.  But  there  was  three  or  four 
staid  in  the  room  all  the  time.  One  of  the 
men  inside  was  purty  reckless,  and  hollered 

out  to  the  crowd  that  they  was  d d  cowards 

and  fools.  I  asked  'em  why  they  did  n't  come 
up  and  take  the  man  out.  We  told  him  to  hush, 
but  said  nothing  to  the  crowd  outside ;  either 
to  those  below  in  the  square,  or  to  those  in  the 
hall.  Those  in  the  square  could  not  have 
heard  what  I  said,  but  those  in  the  hall  were 
perfectly  still  when  any  of  us  was  talking 
inside,  and  might  have  heard.  The  punch 
against  my  head  through  the  stove-pipe  hole 
was  about  half  an  hour  before  John  was  taken 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


21 


out.  This  "  lick  "  didn't  knock  me  down,  but 
would,  if  I  had  n't  been  braced.  It  broke  the 
skin  and  made  the  blood  run.  Didn't  let  go 
the  door  till  they  broke  in  the  window.  They 
come  into  the  window  with  a  ladder.  They  got 
from  the  ladder  on  to  the  platform,  and  dumb 
from  the  platform  into  the  window.  Good 
many  got  in  through  the  window  ;  don't  know 
how  many ;  ten  or  fifteen  piled  in  at  least. 
Others  come  in  at  the  door.  After  I  see  'em 
come  in  at  the  window,  I  let  go  o'  the  door, 
was  perfectly  cool ;  know  all  that  was  done. 
They  seized  hold  of  nobody  but  John.  Seized 
him  and  took  him  out,  I  made  no  demon 
stration  to  fight  at  all.  They  crowded  all 
around  John  and  moved  toward  the  door. 
Think  there  were  no  persons  of  his  color  in 
the  crowd  that  surrounded  him.  Didn't  see 
anybody  take  hold  of  him,  but  they  all  sur 
rounded  him  and  moved  along  towards  the 
door  with  him.  Staid  fifteen  or  twenty  min 
utes  after  John  had  gone.  Saw  John  but  once 
after  he  wa§  taken  out,  and  that  was  just  as 
they  were  landing  him  into  the  wagon.  Was 
looking  out  of  the  window.  See  a  right  smart 
little  bunch  of  men  with  John,  and  they  took 
him  and  put  him  in  the  wagon.  Saw  him  just 
as  he  got  cleverly  off  the  hotel  steps  below, 
and  saw  the  crowd  follow  him  and  put  him  into 
the  wagon.  Saw  him  first  when  he  had  got 
within  five  or  six  feet  of  the  wagon,  and  while 
he  was  being  put  into  it.  The  Vagon  stood 
about  in  the  centre  of  the  square,  and  I  saw 
him  first  when  he  was  about  half  way  from  the 
house  to  the  wagon.  It  might  have  been  five 
or  six  yards  from  the  house  to  the  wagon. 
Could  just  see  John's  head.  There  was  such  a 
crowd  about  him  that  I  could  n't  tell  whether 
he  was  walking  or  the  crowd  carried  him.  He 
was  put  into  the  wagon.  Several  took  hold  of 
him.  Could  see  plainly  from  where  I  stood. 
Cannot  say  whether  he  resisted  the  attempts  to 
put  him  in  or  not.  Very  soon  after  he  was 
put  into  the  wagon,  they  put  on  the  switch  and 
run  him  off.  Have  never  seen  him  since. 
Have  never  seen  the  wagon  since.  Cannot 
tell  whether  it  was  three  years  more  or  less 
before  he  ran  off  that  I  saw  him  hauling  sand. 
Direct  examination  resumed.  John  was  a  full 
blooded  negro,  not  a  drop  of  white  blood  in 
him.  Recognized  John  when  I  found  him  in 
the  room,  to  be  the  same  boy  I  had  known  in 
Kentucky.  There  was  no  arrangement  between 
me  and  Bacon  about  compensating  me  for 
fetching  the  nigger  back.  Did  what  I  did  to 
wards  it,  and  meant  to  do  the  whole,  out  of  pure 
neighborly  kindness.  Thought  it  was  my  duty. 
We&t  direct  from  home  to  Oberlin  the  first 
time  in  pursuit  of  a  nigger  belonging  to  my 
uncle's  estate,  of  which  I  was  administrator ; 
staid  about  a  day  and  a  half  in  Oberlin,  wrote 
to  Bacon,  and  went  to  Sandusky.  From  San- 
dusky  went  home,  passing  Mitchell  on  the  Ohio 
river  without  knowing  it  at  the  time.  Found 
Bacon,  and  he  told  me  that  Mitchell  had  just 


started  with  the  power  of  attorney.  I  did  not 
know  at  the  time  that  Bacon  had  offered  any 
kind  of  reward  for  his  nigger,  but  in  the  course 
of  the  conversation  he  told  me  that  he  had 
said  he  would  give  five  hundred  dollars,  or  half 
the  value  of  the  nigger,  to  any  one  that  would 
fetch  him  back.  I  tried  to  get  him  to  go,  but 
he  said  he  could  not,  and  so  finally  I  told  him 
that  since  I  had  caused  him  to  send  the  power 
of  attorney,  I  would  go  and  use  it  if  I  could ; 
but  nothing  was  said  by  either  of  us  about  any 
reward  to  be  given  to  me.  Think  the  wagon 
was  ten  or  fifteen  yards  from  the  hotel ;  don't 
know  certain.  It  stood  about  in  the  centre  of 
the  square.  Do  n't  know  how  large  the  square 
was. 

Cross-examination  resumed.  We  have  dif 
ferent  names  for  different  colored  niggers  at 
the  South.  Some  we  call  black,  some  yellow, 
and  some  copper-colored.  Yellow  is  part 
white  and  part  black  blood,  usually  about  half- 
and-half.  Copper  color  is  between  black  and 
light  mulatto.  Black  is  black  —  pure  African. 
Some  would  call  John  copper  color,  but  I 
should  call  him  black.  Have  seen  blacker  nig 
gers  than  him.  Never  saw  a  slave  so  white  it 
was  hard  to  tell  him  from  a  white  person. 
Never  saw,  as  I  can  remember  now,  but  one 
that  looked  to  me  to  be  more  than  half  white, 
and  that  was  a  free  woman  that  come  from 
Ohio.  Saw  some  of  these  real  white  ones  at 
Oberlin. 

Seth  W.  Barlliolomeiu  called.  Heside  in 
Oberlin.  Resided  there  in  September,  1858. 
Was  not  at  Wellington  on  the  13th.  Recol 
lects  the  occurrence.  Saw  the  party  start  from 
Oberlin  to  go  to  Wellington.  They  left  about 
four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  The  first  went 
about  four  o'clock ;  and  the  rest  kept  stringing 
along  afterwards.  First  saw  the  defendant 
coming  out  of  Fitch's  bookstore.  Defendant 
is  the  man  witness  saw.  Defendant  inquired 
of  some  men  on  the  street  steps  if  "  they  had 
got  John  ?  "  They  said  "  they  had."  He  (de 
fendant)  asked  what  had  best  be  done.  The 
men  he  asked  were  Professor  Peck,  Ralph 
Plumb,  and  James  M.  Fitch.  One  of  them  — 
can't  remember  which  —  told  defendant  to  go 
out  and  get  'em  ready,  and  they  would  come 
round  and  tell  him.  These  were  the  words. 
Don't  know  what  was  meant.  Defendant 
started  and  went  to  the  crowd.  Crowd  was 
sixty  or  eighty  feet  off.  Next  saw  defendant 
coming  up  to  a  buggy  with  two  men  in  it ;  one 
of  them  had  a  gun.  Only  two  or  three  min 
utes  intervened  between  the  time  he  left  the 
store  steps  and  his  coming  up  to  the  buggy. 
Do  n't  know  who  the  men  in  the  buggy  were  ; 
think  they  were  students.  Defendant  said  to 
the  one  without  a  gun  that  he  had  no  business 
in  there,  and  wanted  him  to  get  out.  That's 
about  all  witness  heard  defendant  say.  Don't 
think  the  man  addressed  got  out.  Saw  defend 
ant  get  into  George  Stevens's  buggy  a  few  min 
utes  after,  perhaps  ten  minutes.  Quite  a  num- 


22 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


bcr  had  already  gone.  Heard  defendant  say 
nothing  farther.  Oliver  S.  B.  Wall  was  in  tRe 
buggy  with  defendant.  They  drove  south  to 
ward  Wellington.  Wall  had  a  gun.  Wall's 
color  is  what  I  should  call  "  mixed."  Didn't  see 
defendant  have  any.  Never  heard  defendant 
make  any  statement  afterward  with  reference 
to  where  he  had  been,  or  what  was  done  at 
Wellington.  This  is  all  witness  knows  about 
defendant's  part  in  the  crowd.  It  was  Stevcns's 
horse  as  well  as  buggy.  Did  n't  see  the  horse 
afterward.  Don't  know  where  the  horse  and 
buggy  went  to.  Defendant  was  noisy  in  the 
•  crowd  before  he  went  away,  but  witness  can't 
tell  what  he  said.  Have  no  idea  what  he  said. 
Defendant  went  away  about  half  an  hour  after 
the  first  of  the  party  started.  The  conversa 
tion  in  the  crowd  was  about  getting  off  as  soon 
as  they  could  to  rescue  John.  They  reckoned 
Lowe  would  take  him  to  Wellington,  and  catch 
the  five  o'clock  train  for  Columbus.  So  they 
was  in  a  great  hurry.  I  met  John.  I  met 
John  and  the  officers  on  the  road,  and  told  of 
it,  so  a  good  many  come  to  me  to  ask  about  it. 
I  told  'em  they  'd  have  to  be  quick  if  they  over 
took  him.  All  the  crowd  were  active.  De 
fendant  was  active  with  the  rest.  The  crowd 
was  all  over  the  street.  They  went  off  in 
buggies,  wagons,  hay-racks,  wood-racks,  etc. 
Could  not  state  how  many  had  arms.  Saw 
guns  sticking  up  all  'round. 
Recess  till  2,  P.  M. 

SECOND  DAY.  —  2  p.  M. 
Seth  W.  Bartholomeiv,  cross-examined.  Have 
resided  in  Obcrlin  twenty-five  years.  Am 
twenty-six  years  old.  Was  in  the  show  busi 
ness  (panorama)  in  Sept.  1858.  Saw  Jennings 
twice  the  day  of  the  Rescue.  First,  in  the 
morning,  in  front  of  Wack's  tavern,  and  in 
the  afternoon  about  two  miles  south  of  Ober- 
lin,  going  towards  Wellington,  in  Wack's  bug 
gy,  with  Wack's  boy  along.  Witness  had  been 
to  Pittsfield  to  post  bills  of  his  show,  and  met 
Jennings  on  his  return.  Also  met  the  negro 
John.  He  was  on  the  back  seat  of  a  carriage, 
three  white  men  being  in  the  carriage  with 
him.  Davis  was  one  of  them.  Do  not  know 
the  others.  They  were  on  the  diagonal  road 
from  Elyria  to  Columbus,  about  two  miles  south 
of  Oberlin.  The  first  men  I  told  about  John, 
were  Peck,  Plumb,  and  Fitch.  Had  no  con 
versation  with  any  of  the  persons  who  were  in 
the  carriage.  The  carriage  they  were  in  was 
not  an  Oberlin  carriage.  Don't  know  where 
it  belonged.  Lyman  was  with  me  coming  from 
Pittsfield,  but  did  n't  see  John.  Don't  know 
that  Lyman  told  any  one  before  I  told  Peck, 
Plumb,  and  Fitch.  One  of  them  said  —  they 
were  standing  in  the  road  a  little  north-east  of 
Carpenter's  store  —  that  they  had  better  go  up 
to  John's  house  and  see  whether  he  was  gone. 
I  told  'cm  they  need  n't  be  to  that  trouble,  for 
I  had  met  John  on  the  road,  headed  towards 
Wellington.  Followed  these  three  men  as  far 


as  Fitch's  store  for  the  purpose  of  telling  them 
more.  Defendant  came  out  of  the  store.  They 
stood  on  the  door-sill,  and  I  stood  on  the  side 
walk.  Don't  know  that  any  one  else  was  near. 
Defendant  spoke  first  and  asked  if  they  'd  got 
him.  One  of  them  told  him  they  had.  [Wit 
ness  repeated  what  followed  precisely  as  on  the 
direct  examination.]  Watson's  buggy  left  for 
Wellington  first  of  all.  Was  not  surprised  to 
find  a  crowd  on  my  return  to  Oberlin,  because 
it  had  been  threatened  that  if  any  man  was 
taken  off  he  would  be  followed  and  brought 
back.  When  I  first  reached  Oberlin,  returning 
from  Pittsfield,  no  crowd  was  gathered.  Put 
out  my  horse  without  speaking  to  any  one,  and 
coming  into  the  street  some  fifteen  minutes 
after,  found  a  crowd  of  twenty  or  thirty  per 
sons.  Then  spoke  to  Peck,  Piumb,  and  Fitch, 
as  before  stated.  Don't  know  what  became  of 
Lyman  after  he  got  out  at  his  house  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  village.  Told  Lyman,  com 
ing  up,  that  if  he  would  n't  say  any  thing  about 
it  till  next  day,  I  would  n't,  for  John  was  a  poor 
louzy  pup,  and  I  wished  they  would  take  him 
off.  Lyman  agreed  to  this.*  I  made  the  prop 
osition  to  keep  still.  I  once  stole  half  a  cheese 
to  keep  from  starving,  and  was  put  through  for 
it. 

Direct  resumed.    It  was  Ansel  Lyman. 

Arlemas  S.  llalbert,  called.  Resided  in  Obor- 
lin  in  Sept.  of  last  year.  Also  before  and  since. 
Was  at  Oberlin  on  the  13th  of  Sept.  Left 
about  3  o'clock.  Saw  the  people  assemble  at 
Oberlin.  Think  they  began  to  assemble  about 
2  o'clock.  Should  think  three  hundred  or 
more  had  gone  before  I  went.  I  should  rather 
say  that  three  hundred  or  more  had  gathered, 
but  probably  not  so  many  as  three  hundred 
went.  Most  who  went  at  all  went  before  I 
did.  Saw  defendant  a  few  minutes  before  I 
left;  he  was  talking  with  another  man  about 
going  to  Wellington.  Defendant  said  some 
thing  about  getting  a  horse  to  go  to  Welling 
ton  ;  but  did  n't  state  on  what  business  he  was 
going.  The  man  he  was  talking  with  was  Mr. 
O.  S.  B.  Wall.  One  of  them,  witness  cannot 
say  which,  said  they  ought  not  to  "O  without  a 
gun,  and  the  other,  who  witness  thinks  was  de 
fendant,  said  he  knew  where  he  could  get  a 
gun.  Witness  then  went  down  street  and  was 
invited  to  go  to  Wellington,  and  accordingly 
went.  Don't  know  what  became  of  defendant. 
Witness  went  in  a  buggy.  Just  outside  the 
village,  defendant  and  Wall  sitting  together  in 
a  bugsy,  overtook  and  passed  witness,  and  kept 
just  liliead,  most  of  the  time  in  sight,  all  the 
way  to  Wellington.  It  was  Harvey  Whitney 
who  asked  witness  to  ride,  and  with  whom  wit 
ness  did  ride.  It  is  nine  miles  to  Wellington. 
We  went  in  three  quarters  of  an  hour.  Saw 
defendant  after  we  got  there.  Found  a  crowd 
of  five  hundred,  I  should  think,  in  front  of 

*  Mr.  LYMAN  immediately  published  a  card  in  the 
Cleveland  Herald,  flatly  denying  this  story. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


23 


"Waclswortli's  hotel.  Defendant  was  in  this 
crowd.  Crowd  were  talking  about  getting  out 
a  warrant  to  arrest  some  men  that  had  a  fugi 
tive  slave  there,  and  defendant  said  that  that 
would  be  the  best  way  to  do  it,  or  something  to 
that  effect.  He  seemed  to  be  pretty  cool; 
cooler  than  the  rest,  and  yet  somewhat  excited. 
Saw  no  arms  in  defendant's  possession.  Crowd 
talked  about  getting  the  fugitive  out  in  some 
way  or  other ;  and  did  n't  talk  about  much  else. 
Saw  some  persons  go  into  the  house,  and  among 
them  Ansel  Lyman,  Wilson  Evans,  Messrs. 
Lincoln,  Wirisor,  Scott,  and  Lairie.  Don't 
know  as  I  remember  any  others.  I  was  stand 
ing  in  the  street  in  front  of  the  hotel,  with  the 
crowd  all  'round  me.  A  good  many  went  in. 
Some  came  out  on  to  the  porch  of  the  second 
story,  and  made  some  report.  They  said  if 
more  men  would  come  up  they  could  get  the 
man  out.  Did  n't  say  who  they  meant  by  "  the 
man."  Heard  defendant  say  nothing  at  this 
time.  Don't  know  where  he  was.  The  infor 
mation  brought  out  to  the  crowd  was [the 

opposite  counsel  submitted  that  the  information 
brought  out  to  the  crowd  was  irrelevant,  unless 
it  was  positively  shown  that  this  information 
reached  the  defendant.  The  Court  overruled 
the  objection.  Exception  was  taken  to  the 
ruling].  Heard  Patton  say  as  he  came  out,  that 
he  had  seen  and  examined  the  papers  in  the 
house,  and  that  they  were  good.  Then  there 
•was  a  sort  of  general  discussion  through  the 
•whole  of  the  crowd  about  the  papers,  some 
thinking  they  were  right,  and  others  doubting 
it.  Was  there  when  the  negro  was  brought 
down.  Think  it  was  about  an  hour  after  they 
began  discussing  the  papers.  Meantime,  some 
said,  "  let 's  go  up  and  bring  him  down ; "  oth 
ers  said,  "  he  must  come  out  of  there."  Could 
not  tell  who  was  most  active  in  such  talk  and 
movements  ;  all  were  pretty  much  excited. 
Should  think  the  crowd  had  two  hundred  or 
three  hundred  pieces  of  firearms,  such  as  guns, 
pistols,  etc.  Don't  know  that  I  heard  any 
threats.  Heard  nothing  from  defendant  ex 
cept  what  I  have  already  stated.  When  they 
came  out  with  the  negro,  I  was  in  front  of  the 
hotel,  near  to  it.  Had  been  all  about  through 
the  crowd  before  this.  When  the  negro  was 
brought  down,  defendant  was  sitting  in  a  buggy 
near  me.  A  horse  was  attached  to  the  buggy. 

Well,  what  was  done  with  the  nigger  ? 

He  was  put  into  the  wagon  in  which  defend 
ant  was  sitting.  There  was  quite  a  crowd  be 
tween  me  and  the  wagon,  and  it  was  a  little 
dusk.  He  seemed  to  be  thrown  in,  or  some 
thing  like  it,  for  his  heels  were  higher  than  his 
head.  The  horse  started  towards  Oberlin, 
somebody  cracking  the  whip  and  driving.— 
Think  defendant  drove,  but  am  not  sure. 
There  was  another  person  in  the  buggy  whom 
I  did  not  know.  Some  time  before  tlie  negro 
was  brought  down,  some  one  asked  defendant 
if  that  was  the  buggy  which  was  to  carry  the 
nigger  off,  and  he" said,  "it  was,"  or,  "he 


s'posed  it  was."  Heard  defendant  say  nothing 
more  about  the  buggy  afterward.  Have  not 
seen  John  since.  Think  I  have  heard  defend 
ant  say  nothing  about  the  Rescue  since.  Do 
not  know  who  went  up  stairs  inside,  not  going 
into  the  house  at  all  myself.  Did  not  see  the 
negro  come  out  on  the  piazza.  The  wagon 
stood,  I  should  think,  from  eight  to  twelve  rods 
from  the  house.  Saw  some  go  in  by  the  second 
story  windows  from  the  second  story  piazza. 
Cannot  tell  how  many. 

Cross-Examined.  Have  lived  in  Oberlin 
about  three  years.  Am  a  painter  by  trade.  X 
Went  from  Cincinnatus,  Cortland  Co.,  N.  Y., 
to  Oberlin.  Was  eighteen  last  December. 
Never  served  any  time  at  my  trade.  Was 
not  at  work  in  September  last.  First  heard  of 
the  excitement  about  one  o'clock.  Heard  the 
crowd  say  that  there  had  been  a  fugitive  taken, 
away  by  some  Southerners.  The  crowd  in 
which  I  was  consisted  of  two  or  three  persons 
beside  myself,  in  front  of  Mr.  Watson's  grocery. 
Ansel  Lyman  was  one  of  them.  Remember 
names  of  no  others.  None  of  them  had  guns. 
It  was  Lyman  who  said  they,  had  got  the  fugi 
tive.  This  was  not  more  than  two  hours  after 
I  saw  him  returning  to  town  with  Bartholomew. 
There  was  another  crowd  in  front  of  Mayor 
Beecher's  store,  about  three  rods  distant.  Saw 
no  guns  in  it  —  about  twenty-five  in  this  crowd. 
There  were  other  groups  pretty  much  all  over 
the  street.  There  were  five  or  six  persons  in 
front  of  Scott's  shop.  Staid  around  the  corners 
some  three  hours  before  going  to  Wellington. 
Crowd  became  much  larger  than  first  found  it. 
Saw  the  first  gun  about  the  time  the  crowd 
was  largest.  Saw  revolvers  at  Oberlin.  Had 
one  myself.  Mine  was  broken.  Don't  know 
but  all  the  others  were.  The  crowd  at  Wel 
lington  talked  as  though  they  thought  the 
Southerners  had  kidnapped  the  negro,  contrary 
to  all  law,  and  they  wanted  to  arrest  them  for 
the  purpose  of  an  investigation.  The  garret 
and  its  window  were  one  story  above  the  piazza 
of  the  second  story,  and  there  was  no  cover 
ing  above  this  second  story  piazza.  Lyman 
and  Winsor  and  Lincoln  went  into  the  house 
from  the  second  story  piazza.  Wilson  Evans 
went  in  at  the  front  door  below.  Cannot  tell 
what  time  in  the  afternoon  either  of  them  went 
in.  Lairie  went  in  below  or  above,  can't  say 
which.  John  Scott  went  in  at  the  door  above. 
Saw  no  one  go  in  at  the  attic  window. 
Saw  no  breaking  in  of  said  window.  Staid 
pretty  much  in  front  of  the  door  from  the  time 
the  men  went  up  till  th6  negro  was  brought 
down.  Some  of  the  crowd  thought  they  had 
best  have  Lowe  come  down  and  show  his  pa 
pers,  if  he  had  any.  Such  were  Henry  Evans 
and  Mr.  Wall.  Others  thought  they  had  bet 
ter  go  and  take  him  any  way.  Don't  know 
any  names  of  such  persons.  Think  I  could 
identify  two  or  three  by  sight.  One  of  these 
said,  "  Let's  go  and  bring  the  nigger  out  any 
how."  This  was  a  mulatto.  He  stopped  at 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


Oberlin  some  little  time.  Does  n't  stop  there 
now.  Saw  him  last  some  time  last  winter. 
Have  n't  at  any  time  told  any  of  the  officers  of 
this  Court  what  I  was  going  to  swear  to.  They 
have  gone  it  pretty  blind  in  putting  me  on  the 
stand.  Have  had  no  particular  or  extended 
conversation  —  nothing  more  than  a  few  gen 
eral  words  —  with  any  of  them  about  this  case 
or  trial.  Can't  say  that  I  ever  told  any  one, 
under  any  circumstances,  what  I  was  going  to 
swear  to.  Can't  say  who  asked  defendant  if 
that  was  the  buggy  the  nigger  was  going  off  in. 
Don't  think  I  saw  the  person  speaking  and  did 
not  recognize  the  voice.  The  language  was 
substantially,  "  Is  this  the  buggy  he 's  going  off 
in  V  "  Defendant  said,  "  It  is,"  or  "  I  suppose 
it  is."  The  buggy  did  n't  stand  in  the  middle 
of  the  square ;  it  stood  in  front  of  the  hotel 
toward  the  North.  Think  it  was  not  the  same 
buggy  that  defendant  went  down  in.  Don't 
know  whose  buggy  it  was.  The  man  who  went 
off  with  defendant  and  the  negro  was  not  the 
man  who  went  down  (from  Oberlin)  with  de 
fendant.  Don't  know  but  he  was  the  owner 
of  the  buggy.  Don't  know  who  he  was. 
Think  the  buggy  was  a  covered  one.  The 
cover  partly  upland  partly  down. 

Direct  resumed.  Saw  a  ladder  put  up. 
Could  not  say  where  it  reached  to.  It  rested 
on  the  edge  of  the  portico.  Saw  several  per 
sons  on  the  ladder.  Think  one  or  two  went  up 
by  the  ladder  to  the  portico.  Think  not  much  of 
any  thing  was  done  with  the  ladder.  Saw  no 
one  go  into  the  attic  window  from  the  ladder. 

Cross  resumed.  Saw  Addison  Wood  go  up 
on  it  to  the  portico.  Mr.  Wood  and  Mr. 
Marks  put  up  the  ladder.  [Two  administration 
democrats.]  Don't  know  Marks's  first  name. 
Is  the  only  Marks  I  know ;  he  lives  in  Oberlin 
and  keeps  a  meat  market 

Norris  Addison  Wood,  called.  Resided  in 
Oberlin  last  September.  Was  there  on  the 
13th.  The  crowd  began  gathering  about  1  or 
2  o'clock.  Large  crowd.  Don't  know  how 
many.  Don't  know  that  I  saw  defendant  in 
the  crowd.  Was  at  Wellington  that  day. 
Started  2  or  3  o'clock.  Marks  and  Wack  went 
with  me.  Found  a  crowd  there.  There  must 
have  been  500  or  GOO.  A  large  crowd  at  any 
rate.  Saw  defendant  there.  Don't  know  that 
1  saw  him  running  around  in  the  crowd  or  else 
where.  Think  I  saw  him  in  the  buggy  in 
front  of  Wadsworth's  tavern.  Did  see  him. 
Think  it  was  an  hour  or  two  after  I  arrived 
that  I  saw  defendant  in  the  buggy.  Think  that 
only  one  team  from  Oberlin  got  to  Wellington 
before  mine.  Think  I  didn't  see  defendant 
before  I  saw  him  in  the  buggy.  Saw  him  after 
ward  out  of  the  buggy  going  towards  the  house. 
Don't  know  what  he  was  doing  or  saying. 
There  was  a  great  deal  of  excitement.  Every 
body  was  excited.  Was  excited  myself.  Don't 
know  as  defendant  was  any  more  excited  than 
the  rest  of  us.  There  were  a  good  many  guns. 
Don't  know  how  many.  Saw  a  colored  man 


point  and  snap  a  gun  at  a  white  man,  neither 
of  them  known  to  me.  Some  of  the  crowd 
said,  "  They'd  have  the  boy  or  pull  the  house 
down,"  "  pull  the  roof  off,"  "  would  n't  leave 
one  brick  on  another,"  etc.  The  Southerners 
came  out  on  the  portico,  and  one  of  them  said 
that  if  any  one  there  wanted  to  ask  the  boy 
whether  he  wanted  to  go  back,  they  had  the 
privilege.  I  spoke  first,  and  immediately  two 
or  three  others.  The  boy  replied  that  they  had 
the  papers,  and  he  s'posed  he'd  have  to  go. 
Don't  know  as  he  said  any  thing  else.  The 
crowd  around  me  then  appeared  to  be  very 
thick,  sir — very  thick.  Think  it  was  the  tallest 
man  of  the  two  Southerners  that  spoke  to  the 
crowd  ;  the  same  one  that  I  had  seen  at  Wack's 
that  morning.  Think  there  were  some  started 
to  go  and  examine  the  papers,  but  can't  say 
where  they  went  to.  Heard  talk  about  papers 
and  an  examination  that  had  been  made,  but 
couldn't  tell  who  went  in  or  who  came  out.  I 
mean  the  papers  which  were  being  made  out 
to  arrest  the  Southerners.  Don't  know  any 
thing  about  an  examination  of  th'e  papers  be 
longing  to  the  Southerners.  Don't  know  that 
any  such  examination  was  attempted  or  made. 
Heard  it  said  that  there  could  be  no  arrest 
without  sending  to  Elyria.  It  was  not  a  great 
while  after  they  had  been  out  on  the  portico  be 
fore  they  brought  him  down.  Can't  tell  how 
long.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  excitement 
and  noise  and  confusion  ;  did  n't  take  much 
note  of  time.  Didn't  hardly  know  it  was 
night  when  it  was  night.  There  was  a  man 
hollered  out  of  the  attic  window  every  once  in 
a  while,  telling  the  crowd  to  come  up  there  and 

not  be  such  d d  cowards.     Don't  know  who 

he  was.  Some  of  the  crowd  hollered  back  that 
they  would  come  up;  others  that  they  must 
open  the  door  and  let  him  out.  It  was  a  very 
noisy  time ;  a  great  deal  of  excitement  and 
confusion.  Saw  a  ladder  put  up  and  taken 
down,  and  after  a  little  there  was  another  lad 
der  put  up.  Some  went  up  on  the  second  lad 
der.  Saw  no  one  go  in  at  the  attic  window. 
Was  up  on  the  porch  and  heard  the  cry  that 
they  had  got  him.  Rushed  at  once  into  the 
hall  to  try  to  get  a  sight  at  him.  Could  only 
get  one  glimpse  as  he  was  going  down  the 
stairs.  Next  I  saw  of  him  he  was  in  the  buggy. 
Don't  know  whether  there  was  or  was  not  some 
one  in  the  buggy  before  the  nigger  was  put  in. 
Saw  defendant  in  the  buggy  with  the  nigger. 
Don't  know  whether  any  one  else  got  in. 
Did  n't  see  them  drive  off.  Don't  know  which 
way  they  went  or  who  drove.  Have  never 
seen  John  since.  He  was  generally  reputed  to 
be  a  fugitive. 

Was  there  any  thing  said  in  the  crowd  about 
the  Higher  Law  ? 

Don't  know,  unless  that  was  what  they 
meant  to  send  to  Elyria  about.  [^Uproarious 
laughter,  in  which  even  the  Court  itself  heart 
ily  joined.] 

Cross-examined.    First  I  heard  of  the  excite- 


OBERLIX-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


25 


merit  I  was  going  down  from  dinner  to  my  [ 
(livery)  stable,  and  met  Gaston  and  Bartholo 
mew/  They  stopped  me  and  told  me  the 
Southerners  had  got  a  negro  and  gone  off  with 
him.  Did  n't  ivant  I  should  say  any  thing  about 
it.  Went  farther  down  town  and  found  Lyman 
in  front  of  Watson's  grocery,  telling  the  story. 
Some  doubted  the  truth  of  it.  I  looked  around, 
and  Bartholomew  stood  right  behind  me.  He 
spoke  and  said  it  was  so.  There  was  some 
little  crowd  then,  which  kept  growing  larger 
all  the  time.  There  was  a  fire  at  Wellington 
Sunday  night  or  Monday  morning  (the  Monday 
of  the  alleged  rescue)  within  eight  or  ten  rods 
of  the  hotel  (Wads worth's),  which  was  not  yet 
extinguished  in  the  afternoon,  and  there  was 
something  of  a  crowd  around  it,  looking  at  the 
ruins  when  I  first  reached  Wellington.  Some 
were  talking  about  the  fire,  and  some  about  the 
neuro.  Went  from  the  fire  to  the  saloon,  and 
got  some  cigars.  A  good  many  Oberlinites 
were  now  coming  in.  Do  n't  know  who  put 
up  the  first  ladder.  After  this  was  taken  down, 
Marks  and  I  went  across  the  street  and  found 
a  couple  of  ladies,  and  asked  them  if  we  might 
take  a  ladder  there  was  there.  They  said  yes. 
It  was  a  very  heavy  ladder,  but  did  n't  seem 
heavy  then.  Seemed  light.  We  were  excited 
a  good  deal.  Everybody  was.  We  took  it 
across  the  street  and  set  it  up  against  the  por 
tico.  Several  persons  helped  us.  I  went  up 
on  the  ladder.  A  man  threatened  to  shoot  me 
if  I  came  up.  He  cocked  his  gun  at  me. 
Don't  know  who  he  was.  He  didn't  fire. 
Saw  no  one  go  in  at  attic  window.  Believe  no 
one  tried  to  go  in  there.  A  colored  man  near 
me  told  John,  who  was  at  the  attic  window,  to 
jump  down,  and  if  they  tried  to  hinder  him,  he 
would  shoot. 

Did  you  invite  the  negro  to  jump  down  ? 

No,  sir. 

Did  you  beckon  to  him  to  jump  down  ? 

[Witness  instantly  colored  scarlet  and  drop 
ped  his  face,  making  no  reply.  Counsel  there 
fore  withdrew  the  question.]  Adjourned  till 
9  o'clock  next  morning. 

THIRD  DAY. —  9,  A.M. 

Jacob  Wheeler,  called.  Reside  in  Rochester, 
Lorain  county,  sixteen  miles  from  Obcrlin  ;  six 
or  seven  from  Wellington.  [Is  Postmaster  of  the 
place.]  Was  not  at  Oberlin  on  the  13th  of 
September.  Was  at  Wellington,  at  the  time 
of  the  rescue  of  the  negro,  John.  Got  to  Wel 
lington  a  little  after  noon.  Remained  till  the 
slave  was  rescued.  Could  not  tell  how  many 
people  were  there.  Were  a  good  many.  Might 
be  400.  A  good  many  had  guns  with  them. 
Was  around  in  the  crowd  some  of  the  time. 
They  said  they  were  after  a  slave  that  had 
been  taken  from  Obcrlin.  The  main  talk  was 
to  rescue  the  man  and  take  him  back  at  any 
rate,  if  they  had  to  tear  the  house  down.  See 
a  good  many  go  into  the  room  where  the  negro 
was.  Went  in  myself.  Also  Barnabas  Meacham, 


a  constable,  and  Walter  Soules,  Hines,  Man- 
deville,  John  Wheeler,  Conrad  Wheeler  and 
Edward  Wheeler,  all  three  my  brothers.  All 
these  were  white  men.  Esquire  Bennett  was 
in  the  room  adjoining ;  am  not  sure  whether 
he  went  into  the  room  where  the  negro  was. 
Esquire  Bennett  and  others  examined  Lowe's 
papers.  A  gentleman  named  Patton,  from 
Oberlin,  was  with  them.  I  saw  the  power  of 
attorney  ;  think  Meacham  was  present  when  I 
saw  it.  The  papers  were  exhibited  by  Lowe. 
Sciples  had  the  same  chance  to  see  them  that 
the  rest  of  us  did.  Can't  say  that  Sciples  and 
Soules  saw  the  papers.  They  two  came  in  to 
gether.  Lowe  called  upon  all  in  the  room  to 
assist  him.  I  might  have  been  in  the  room  in 
all  three  hours.  I  Avent  first  into  the  attic 
room.  Staid  in  that  room  three  hours  or  so. 
Went  down  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  still 
the  crowd.  Told  the  crowd  that  it  was  not  the 
better  way  to  take  such  a  course  ;  that  there 
was  no  question  but  that  they  had  a  legal  right 
to  take  him,  that  they  had  shown  their  papers, 
that  Bennett  and  others  had  seen  the  papers, 
and  any  that  still  doubted  could  go  up  and  see 
them.  Lowe  said  he  was  willing  to  go  before 
a  magistrate  in  the  TOAVII  Hall  or  anywhere 
else  and  have  the  papers  examined,  if  he  could 
go  safely.  I  did  n't  tell  the  crowd  this  last. 
LOAVC  said  this  in  the  room  or  in  the  hall,  in 
the  presence  of  a  good  many  people.  Believe 
they  said  they  had  a  warrant  to  arrest  Lowe. 
After  LOAVC  had  gone  out  to  shoAv  his  papers, 
tAvo  Avhite  men  came  in  and  took  hold  of  John, 
and  took  him  to  the  door  and  tried  to  get  him 
out.  The  door  Avas  fastened,  and  those  near  it 
Avould  not  let  them  take  him  out.  Don't  knoAV 
the  names  of  these  two  men,  but  should  knoAV 
their  faces ;  at  least,  one  of  them.  The  papers 
Avere  shoAvn  and  examined  •  in  a  little  small 
room,  adjoining  the  one  in  which  the  nigger 
AAras.  Esquire  HoAvk,  Esquire  Bennett,  "and 
Mr.  Patton  examined  Mr.  LOAVC'S  papers. 
Think  Patton  Avent  out  more  than  once  on  to 
the  balcony,  and  tried  to  pcacify  the  crowd,  and 
make  'em  keep  order.  He  told  them  there  Avas 
no  doubt  but  that  they  had  a  right  to  retain 
him  according  to  laAv,  as  the  laAv  was.  If 
they  done  any  thing,  they  Avould  hev  to  take 
legal  steps.  Langston,  of  Oberlin,  did  likeAvisc. 
When  Patton  made  these  statements  the  croAvd 
Avas  all  around  the  house,  but  mostly  in  front 
of  the  portico.  Think  most  of  the  croAvd  could 
hear  him.  He  spoke  loud,  for  the  purpose  of 
being  heard.  A  good  deal  was  said  by  the 
crowd  in  reply.  Some  of  what  I  should  call 
the  lower  orders,  and  some  that  I  thought  Avas 


stood  within  five  or  six  rods  of  the  door.  Saw 
John  pitched  into  the  carriage,  and  the  horse 
start.  Don't  knoAV  Avho  was  in  the  carriage  at 
the  time.  Don't  knoAV  defendant.  Carriage 
went  toAvards  the  North.  Was  not  in  the  roorn 


26 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


at  the  time  they  took  him  out.  Saw  him  first 
just  as  they  got  him  down  out  of  the  door. 
Can't  say  whether  I  saw  any  one  go  in  at  the 
door.  Was  standing  at  the  foot  of  the  lower 
stairs,  to  keep  the  crowd  from  going  up.  lie- 
quested  to  do  so  by  Mr.  Wadsworth.  Saw  a 
ladder  put  up,  and  people  going  up  on  it. 
Pretty  soon  saw  the  hall  above  was  full.  After 
they  got  full  above,  I  left  the  foot  of  the  stairs 
and  went  out  where  I  could  have  a  chance  to 
see.  Had  no  conversation  with  defendant. 
Don't  know  him. 

Cross  examined.  There  was  considerable  of 
a  crowd  when  I  first  got  to  Wellington.  More 
came  afterwards.  A  good  many  more.  About 
sundown  there  were  400  or  so.  [By  leave  of 
counsel  for  defence.] 

Direct  resumed.  Saw  the  negro  go  out  on 
to  the  platform.  I  had  asked  and  received  per 
mission  of  Lowe  to  put  to  the  negro  such  ques 
tions  as  I  saw  fit.  Asked  him  where  he  be 
longed.  He  said  in  Kentucky.  Belonged  to  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Bacon. 

[Counsel  for  defence  objected  to  testimony 
as  to  what  this  piece  of  property  said.  Objec 
tion  overruled.]  Asked  him  for  what  cause  he 
had  left  his  master.  Asked  if  his  master  did  n't 
use  him  well,  and  give  him  enough  to  eat  and 
wear.  Asked  him  if  he  had  ever  abused  him. 
He  rather  hesitated,  and  appeared  to  hang  back, 
as  if  he  thought  he  was  abused  sometimes. 
Then  I  told  him  he  had  lived  long  enough  in 
this  part  of  the  country  to  know  that  it  was 
necessary  for  white  folks  here  to  correct  their 
own  children  sometimes,  for  their  good.  [Much 
laughter.]  He  said  yes.  Asked  him  if  his 
master  had  ever  used  him  worse  than  some 
white  folks  punish  their  children  here.  Said  he 
did  n't  know  as  he  did.  Said  he  had  started  to 
go  back  to  Kentucky  once ;  got  as  far  as  Co 
lumbus,  and  the  folks  from  Oberlin  overtook 
him  and  brought  him  back  !  [Great  laughter.] 
Asked  him  if  he  did  n't  want  to  go  back  now. 
He  said  that  he  s'poscd  accordin'  to  the  laws  of 
the  country,  he  was  obleeged  to  go  back.  By 
the  laws  of  the  country  he  meant  the  laws  of 
Ohio.  [Laughter.]  I  told  him  that  if  he  wanted 
to  go  back  his  best  way  was  to  let  the  people 
know  it,  for  the  crowd  was  getting  to  act  like 
crazy  people,  some  of  'em.  He  hesitated  a 
good  deal,  but  finally  partly  said  he  was  willing 
to  go,  and  was  willing  to  tell  the  crowd  so.  He 
finally  pretty  much  give  me  to  think  that  that 
was  his  answer.  Then  I  told  Mr.  Lowe  that 
his  best  way  was,  if  the  nigger  was  willin'  to  go 
back,  to  take  him  out  on  to  the  platform,  and  have 
him  tell  the  crowd  so.  Then  Lowe  and  him 
and  Mitchell,  and  several  other  gentlemen 
[laughter]  went  out  on  to  the  platform,  and  he 
began  to  tell  his  story.  Some  of  the  colored 
people  below  told  him  to  come  down,  but  finally 
order  was  restored  so  that  he  could  go  on  with 
his  story.  Don't  know  as  I  can  get  his  words. 
The  substance  was  this :  —  The  nigger  request 
ed  of  'em  fur  to  be  peaceable  a  niinnit,  and  said 


he  s'poscd  he  should  hcv  to  go ;  they  had  ar 
rested  him,  and  accordin'  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  he  supposed  he  should  hev  to 
go.  After  he  had  got  through,  some  of  the 
colored  folks  pointed  their  guns  towards  him, 
and  told  him  to  come  down.  Then  Mr.  Lowe 
and  the  rest  of  'em  that  was  on  the  platform, 
hurried  liim  right  back  into  the  hall  and  shut 
the  door.  This  was  about  a  half  an  hour,  per 
haps,  before  the  nigger  was  finally  brought 
down.  Was  excited,  and  did  n't  notice  much 
about  time. 

Cross  resumed.  Might  have  been  thirty 
or  forty  colored  people  out  of  the  four  hundred. 
The  rest  were  white.  Went  to  Wellington  to 
see  about  the  fire.  Fire  was  over  when  I  got 
there.  Good  many  went  from  Rochester  be 
sides  myself;  three  of  my  brothers  at  any  rate ; 
and  perhaps  half  a  dozen  others.  No  colored  peo 
ple  among  these.  Overtook  other  people  going 
in  to  see  the  fire.  Saw  people  that  I  knew 
from  all  the  towns  about.  Knew  nothing  of 
the  negro  affair  till  I  got  to  Wellington.  Noth 
ing  but  the  fire  brought  me  there.  "Think  noth 
ing  else  brought  others  who  were  coming  in 
from  towns  all  about  when  I  was.  About  one 
hundred  in  all  were  gathered  in  town  when  I 
came  in.  No  stir  was  made  till,  it  might  have 
been,  near  about  four  o'clock.  Didn't  see  the 
nigger  brought  in.  Don't  know  when  he  was 
brought  in.  Had  been  there  an  hour  or  so 
before  I  heard  of  him.  Heard  then  that  some 
Kentuckians  had  a  nigger  there.  Went  and 
asked  landlord  if  I  might  go  and  make  their 
acquaintance.  Wanted  to  see  them  because  I 
have  a  brother  in  Kentucky,  that  I  have  n't  seen 
but  once  in  thirty  years,  and  didn't  know  but 
these  men  might  know  him,  or  perhaps  he 
might  be  one  of  'em.  Either  the  landlord  or 
Fay  went  up  and  introduced  me.  Entered  into 
conversation  with  Mitchell.  Asked  about  my 
brother.  Mitchell  knew  him  well.  He  won 
dered  if  we  .were  brothers.  Could  n't  b'iievc  we 
had  the  same  father.  Complexions  aiut  much 
alike.  My  brother's  hair  is  very  black. 

The  first  beginning  of  the  breeze  was  when 
Watson's  team  drove  up,  Then  they  began  to 
hurrah  outside.  AVas  introduced  to  all  the 
other  gentlemen  except  John.  [Much  laughter.] 
Think  it  was  after  four  and  might  have  been 
five  o'clock  when  Watson  drove  up.  John  was 
up  in  the  cock-loft  when  Watson  drove  up.  The 
house  lias  three  stories  above  the  ground.  John 
was  in  the  third  story.  Think  there  is  an  attic 
above  that  But  one  window  in  the  room. 
When  I  found  these  men  knew  my  broth 
er,  I  went  down  and  got  my  other  brothers,  and 
took  them  up,  so't  they  might  have  a  chance  to 
talk  with  'em.  My  brothers  and  I  staid  till 
Wai  son  drove  up.  Should  think  there  was  five 
or  six,  or  more,  fellows  in  the  buggy  with  him. 
John,  Edward,  and  Conrad  are  my  brothers' 
names.  About  the  time  Watson  drove  up, 
Edward  went  down.  The  rest  of  us  staid.  Saw 
Watson  when  he  drove  up.  Can't  say  whether 


OBERLIN-WELLIXGTON  RESCUE. 


27 


any  of  those  with  him  were  white.  The  Ken- 
tuckians  acted  as  though  they  were  a  little 
started  when  the  buggy  drove  up,  and  Lowe 
immediately  called  upon  all  in  the  room  to 
assist  him.  Think  Fay  was  in  the  room.  There 
might  have  been  others  in.  There  were  per 
sons  passing  in  and  out.  Different  persons ;  did 
not  recognize  every  one.  Pretty  soon  •  a  mess 
more  come  marching  up  into  the  square,  some 
of  'em  white  and  some  colored.  More  drove 
up  in  buggies  and  wagons,  and  then  they  sur 
rounded  the  house ;  put  a  guard  all  'round.  It 
might  have  been  a  half  an  hour,  more  or  less, 
after  this  before  I  went  down.  Went  down 
and  back  several  times.  It  was  before  I  went 
down  the  first  time  that  I  catechized  John.  I 
talked  with  him  before  Watson  came,  and  then 
again  after  the  crowd  got  so  excited  I  went 
and  talked  with  him  again.  He  told  me,  in  the 
first  conversation,  that  he  was  willing  to  go  with 
Mitchell  anywhere  ;  he  was  a  man  that  he  was 
acquainted  with ;  when  they  took  him  he  did  n't 
know  the  other  men.  By  "  the  other  men  "  he 
referred  to  Lowe,  Jennings,  and  Davis.  Closed 
up  this  first  conversation  with  him,  it  might 
have  been  a  half  an  hour  or  an  hour  before 
Watson  came.  All  was  quiet  before  Watson 
came,  except  an  occasional  remark  that  there 
was  a  slave  in  the  hotel.  The  greater  part  of 
the  Oberlin  folks  had  got  there  when  I  went 
down.  The  door  of  the  room  in  which  the 
negro  was,  was  fastened,  I  think,  when  I  first 
came  in,  and  when  I  went  out  was  unfastened 
to  let  me  out,  and  fastened  after  me.  Found  a 
large  crowd  down  there  all  round  the  house, 
some  three  hundred  or  so.  The  house  was 
surrounded  with  guards.  The  colored  people 
seemed  the  most  warlike.  Think  some  of  the 
younger  lads  among  the  white  folks  might  have 
had  guns  too.  Did  see  arms  in  hands  of  white 
men.  Lincoln,  the  reporter  yonder,  was  one 
of  them.  He  had  a  nice  rifle.  Saw  him  pretty 
much  the  first  when  I  got  down,  near  the  back 
door,  outside.  Went  out  the  back  door  because 
the  front  door  was  fastened.  Five  or  six  colored 
men  were  with  Lincoln,  all  bearing  arms.  He 
had  a  nice  little  ride ;  don't  know  whether  it 
was  a  Sharpc's.  Told  Lincoln  he  ought  to  have 
more  sense  than  to  crowd  them  colored  men  up 
where  they  might  be  dangerous.  [Laughter.] 
Told  him  the  passage  was  narrow,  and  if  they 
tried  to  get  up  there  would  be  difficulty,  and  it 
one  gun  was  fired,  more  would  be  fired.  Also 
that  I  was  satisfied  that  accordin*  to  law 
Lowe  was  authorized  to  keep  him,  and  if  any 
one  doubted  it,  they  could  go  up  and  see  his 
papers.  Told  the  crowd  that  the  negro  had 
told  me  he  once  started  to  go  home,  got  as  far 
as  Columbus,  and  the  Oberlin  people  overtook 
and  brought  him  back.  [Much  laughter.]  Did  n't 
tell  them  I  was  authorized  to  invite  them  to 
look  at  the  papers.  Lowe  did  not  request  or 
authorize  me  to  do  so.  Told  this  to  a  crowd  in 
the  yard.  Might  have  been  one  hundred  and 
fifty  in  the  yard,  which  is  four  rods  square. 


Then  went  around  to  the  back  side  of  the  house 
to  the  L  part,  where  the  women  stood  at  the 
windows,  and  they  let  me  in.  They  were  afraid 
there  would  be  trouble.  Went  through  the 
dining-room,  around  into  the  hall,  to  the  loot  of 
the  stairs.  A  constable  and  the  landlord  stood 
guarding  the  back  door  of  the  hall,  keeping  the 
crowd  out.  Landlord  asked  me  to  stand  at  foot 
of  stairs  to  keep  the  crowd  from  going  up. 
Stood  there  half  an  hour  or  so.  While  I  stood 
there  the  crowd  broke  in  at  the  east  door. 
Some  of  the  crowd  clinched  with  Fay  [who 
seems  also  to  have  been  one  of  the  guard],  and 
I  went  to  his  assistance.  Saw  a  man  strike 
towards  him  with  a  gun.  Snatched  the  gun 
away,  and  threw  it  out  into  the  street,  through 
the  dining-room  window.  Followed  it  into  the 
street,  picked  it  up,  threw  it  against  the  wall, 
and  broke  it  and  jammed  it  up""  bad,  and  then 
flung  it  out  again,  further  away  into  the  street. 
Then  passed  'round  in  front  of  the  front  door, 
and  just  about  the  time  I  got  'round,  they  came 
down  with  the  darkle,  and  rushed  him  off. 

Direct  resumed.  Lincoln  answered  me  that 
he  was  a  child  of  God,  and  had  as  lief  die  in  a 
good  cause  as  live.  I  told  him  that  if  he  got  in 
the  way  God  would  let  a  bullet  go  through  him 
just  as  quick  as  through  one  of  those  black  fel 
lows.  [Counsel  submitted  that  this  was  purely 
a  theological  discussion,  not  relevant  to  the 
case ;  which,  of  course,  provoked  universal 
merriment.]  If  there  were  any  crowd  in  front 
of  the  building  they  could  not  hear  what  I  was 
saying  to  Lincoln  and  his  crowd.  The  crowd 
was  moving  about  all  the  time.  Think  that 
when  I  went  round  front  side  after  throwing 
the  gun  away,  might  have  been  stopped  by  some 
person  asking  me  something  about  the  negro's 
wanting  to  go  back. 

Richard  P.  Mitchell,  called.  Reside  in  Ma 
son  Co.,  Kentucky.  Was  born  there  in  1824. 
Always  lived  there.  Know  John  G.  Bacon. 
For  last  four  or  five  years  lived  within  quarter 
of  a  mile  of  him.  Knew  negro  John.  Known 
him  since  he  was  a  small  child.  He  was  liild 
as  the  property  of  John  G.  Bacon  from  184G  or 
1847  to  the  time  he  left.  Bacon  got  him  from 
his  father's  estate  by  division  of  property. 
Knew  his  mother  Louisa.  She  was  a  slave 
belonging  to  the  estate  of  John  G.  Bacon,  de 
ceased,  and  is  yet.  I  saw  her  last  Friday  even 
ing.  Think  she  now  belongs  to  John  G.  Ba 
con's  mother  or  his  younger  brother.  Used  to 
know  nigger  John  at  old  man  Bacon's,  and 
have  likewise  known  him  since  he  came  into 
the  son's  possession.  Been  with  him  a  great 
deal  of  late  years  (prior  to  his  alleged  escape), 
almost  constantly.  Have  worked  on  the  same 
farm  with  him.  This  was  in  '48.  After  that 
worked  for  Bacon  by  the  day  a  great  deal, 
right  alongside  the  boy.  John  left  in  Jan.  '56. 
Don't  know  the  day  of  the  month.  Did  n't  see 
him  go.  Don't  know  that  he  went  away. 
Bacon  was  visiting  at  his  father-in-law's  when 
nigger  left.  Saw  John  first  after  he  left,  at 


HISTOKY   OF   THE 


Obcrlin,  in  Sept.,  '58.  Went  to  Oberlin  for 
Bacon.  First  time  I  saw  John  he  passed  the 
•window  of  Wack's  hotel.  Knew  him  instantly. 
Next  time  I  saw  him  was  when  we  arrested 
him,  one  and  a  half  or  two  miles  east  of  Ober 
lin,  on  the  13th  of  September,  1858.  Took 
him  to  Wellington.  I  was  along  with  him. 
Took  our  dinner  at  the  hotel,  and  went  up  into 
the  second  story.  Jennings  came  and  said  he 
did  n't  like  that  room.  He  asked  the  landlord 
for,  and  received  a  better  room  in  the  third 
story.  Went  up  to  the  third  story  about  3 
o'clock.  Several  persons  came  into  the  room 
to  see  us  and  talk  with  us,  Jacob  Wheeler 
and  others.  Don't  know  names  of  others. 
Crowd  pulled  the  door  open,  and  took  John 
out.  No  lock  on  the  door.  Jennings  was 
holding  it.  I  was  standing  close  to  the  door  ; 
within  a  few  feet  of  it.  Was  trying  to  assist 
Jennings.  Think  they  come  in  and  got  hold 
of  the  nigger  and  led  him  out.  They  took 
him  down  stairs.  Last  I  seen  of  him  they  put 
him  into  a  wagon  in  the  open  space  in  front  of 
the  hotel.  Power  of  attorney  was  exhibited  to 
several  persons  who  came  in  in  the  course  of 
the  afternoon.  One  I  think  called  himself  a 
lawyer ;  he  took  it  and  read  it.  Don't  know 
that  any  one  else  did.  Wheeler  talked  with 
the  nigger.  Am  not  sure  that  others  did. 
Think  they  did,  but  did  n't  hear  what  was  said, 
if  any  thing.  Several  persons  outside  asked 
by  what  authority  the  boy  was  held,  and  were 
told,  By  power  of  attorney.  Several  asked  if 
he  was  a  slave.  We  told  'em  he  was.  They 
took  John  out  on  the  platform  (portico).  John 
went  out  and  told  'em  he  was  going  home.  His 
master  had  sent  for  him  and  he  was  going 
home.  Also  that  they  had  the  papers  for  him 
and  he'd  hev  to  go  home.  Think  he  did  n't 
say  with  whom  heVas  going.  Several  persons 
in  the  room  asked  him  if  he  was  willing  to  go 
home.  He  observed  that  he  was ;  would  go 
•with  Mr.  Mitchell  anywhere.  Some  persons 
asked  him  why  he  was  willing  to  go  with 
Mr.  Mitchell.  He  said  he  knew  if  he  went 
with  Mr.  Mitchell  he  would  get  to  see  his 
rnassa  John  and  his  old  mistress.  Persons 
asked  him  if  he  wanted  to  see  his  mother. 
Said  he  did,  but  would  much  rather  see  his  old 
mistress !  [Laughter.]  Think  there  was  no 
Justice  of  the  Peace  in  the  room  at  the  time, 
but  several  other  persons  might  have  been, 
besides  our  party  and  Jacob  Wheeler.  Told 
me  he  started  to  go  home  to  Kentucky,  got*  as 
far  as  Columbus,  and  was  stopped  there  by 
persons  who  detained  him  a  day  or  two,  and 
then  sent  him  back  to  Oberlin,  paying  his  way 
in  the  kyars.  Recess  till  2,  p.  M. 

THIRD  DAY.  —  2,  p.  M. 

Richard  P.  Mitchell,  examination  in  chief 
continued.  Don't  remember  that  any  tiling 
else  passed  between  the  negro  and  myself. 
Did  n't  notice  any  guns  pointed  at  the  negro 
while  out  on  the  platform. 


Cross-examined.  Am  a  farmer.  Have  been 
constable.  Held  that  office  two  or  three  years. 
Been  in  Ohio  frequently  before  coming  to 
Oberlin  last  September.  All  that  I  know  of 
Bacon's  whereabouts  when  John  was  missed, 
is  by  hearsay.  Know  nothing  personally. 
Know  nothing  about  his  leaving  except  by  re 
port,  and  the  fact  that  I  did  n't  see  him  about 
any  more.  Have  been  twice  after  John.  In 
March,  '56,  went  into  Fayette  county  after 
him.  Didn't  see  John  then.  Had  been  in 
Ohio  after  negroes  before  going  first  after 
John.  Before  going  after  him  the  second  time, 
Bacon  came  and  asked  me  to  go  out  to  Ober 
lin  to  act  with  Jennings  as  witness  and  assist 
ant  in  taking  John.  Nothing  was  said  about 
compensation.  He  gave  me  fifty  dollars  to  pay 
my  expenses.  Expected  to  receive  a  dollar  a 
day  for  my  time.  Only  this,  Bacon  paid  me 
eleven  dollars  when  I  got  home  for  the  eleven 
days  I  was  gone.  Think  this  good  pay.  But 
no  bargain  was  made  about  pay.  Had  been  in 
this  state  in  pursuit  of  one  slave  before  going 
after  John  first.  Had  the  same  pay  then.  No 
bargain  made  in  that  case  about  pay  before 
starting.  John  was  Bacon's  slave,  because  he 
served  and  obeyed  him  as  a  slave.  Know 
nothing  about  the  right  he  had  to  the  slaves, 
except  by  seeing  them  treated  as  slaves.  Don't 
know  as  the  old  gentleman  made  any  will.  He 
died  in  1847.  Know  nothing  personally  about 
the  division  of  the  property.  Jennings  has  been 
in  the  witness'  room  telling  what  he  hatf  sworn 
to.  I  have  also  seen  the  report  in  the  paper. 
1  should  call  John  a  dark  copper  color,  not  a  jet 
black.  Have  worked  as  a  hand  with  John  for 
Bacon  many  a  day,  since  I  was  constable.  Last 
time  I  remember  to  have  seen  John  was  about 
Christmas  or  New- Year's,  1856.  John  is  about 
five  feet  eight  or  ten  inches  high ;  weighs  about 
150  or  160  pounds.  Full  face,  good-looking. 
Some  niggers  are  called  black;  these  are  the  nig 
ger  blood  ;  pure  African.  Copper  color,  the 
same  blood,  a  little  lighter  color.  There's  a 
nigger  behind  you  there  I  should  call  a  mulatto, 
but  couldn't  be  sure  that  he  was  not  pure 
African  blood.  We  sometimes  call  full-blooded 
nigo-ers  mulattoes,  because  they  are  so  light. 
Besides  the  black  and  copper  we  have  mulat 
toes,  sometimes  called  yaller ;  I  never  use  that 
term.  Have  seen  a  great  many  niggers  whiter 
than  the  counsel.  Call  them  light  mulattoes. 
So  we  have  black,  light  and  black  copper, 
yaller,  and  light  and  dark  mulattoes,  which  in 
clude  all  classes.  I  arrived  at  Oberlin  on  Mon 
day,  Sept.  6,  1858.  Jennings  came  I  believe 
two  days  after.  I  communicated  my  business 
to  United  States  deputy-marshal  Dayton. 
Bacon  told  me  to  inquire  for  him.  Asked 
Wack,  my  landlord,  if  he  knew  Dayton.  Said 
he  did.  Wrote  to  Dayton.  Dayton  came  next 
day.  After  Jennings  came,  told  Wack  my 
business  —  looking  ibr  a  nigger.  He  asked 
what  nigger.  Never  saw  Boynton  till  I  met 
him  as  grand  juror.  Never  talked  with  old 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


29 


Mr.  Warren.  Heard  Jennings  talk  with  him. 
Never  talk  to  men  about  my  business  unless  I 
know  who  I  am  talking  to.  Never  doubted  the 
legality  and  sufficiency  of  the  power  of  attor 
ney.  Came  a  day  or  two  after  the  attempt  to 
take  Van  Wagoner.  Heard  about  it.  ^Had 
no  hand  in  procuring  John  to  pass  Wack's 
window  when  I  first  saw  him. 

Next  saw  John  on  Monday,  Sept.  13th,  in  a 
buggy  east  of  Oberlin.  Expected  to  find  him. 
Jennings  told  me  the  arrangement  he  had 
made.  Davis  and  Lowe  were  with  me.  Davis 
got  out  and  took  hold  of  John.  I  got  out  and 
told  him  he  must  get  in  the  carriage  with  us.  I 
had  a  revolver  and  dirk.  [Dirk  exhibited.] 
Showed  no  arms  to  John.  Saw  no  one  show 
arms  to  John.  Lowe  showed  power  of  attor 
ney  to  John.  I  read  it  to  him.  Think  Lowe 
gave  John  a  chance  to  reati  it.  Don't  know. 
Think  he  can't  read  it  if  he  had  a  chance.  Saw 
Davis  have  a  revolver  the  night  before.  Never 
saw  —  think  I  never  did  —  Lowe  have  any 
weapons.  We  overtook  the  buggy  in  which 
John  was,  checked  our  horses,  and  Davis 
jumped  out  and  took  hold  of  John  before 
Shakespeare  stopped.  John  had  a  small  knife. 
I  told  him  to  give  it  to  me.  He  objected.  I 
put  my  hand  toward  my  inside  pocket,  and  he 
dropped  the  knife  right  down  on  the  ground. 
My  revolver  was  in  that  pocket.  I  suppose  he 
knew  what  the  movement  meant.  John  first 
said  he  did  n't  know  me,  but  after  we  had  driven 
a  little  piece,  he  laughed  and  said,  he  knew  me 
as  soon  as  he  see  me.  This  change  of  buggies 
happened  a  mile  or  two  out  of  Oberlin.  Last 
I  saw  of  Shakespeare  he  was  turning  his  horse 
around  and  heading  toward  Oberlin.  Shake 
speare  started  from  "Oberlin  first,  and  we  over 
took  him.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  making 
the  plans.  Simply  followed  Jennings's  direc 
tions.  Stopped  at  Wadsworth's  hotel  in  Wel 
lington.  John  sat  on  the  back  seat  with  me. 
Lowe  drove.  It  was  a  two-seated,  double,  cov 
ered  carriage.  Told  Wadsworth  we  had  a 
nigger  we  had  arrested,  and  were  going  to  take 
to  Kentucky,  and  wanted  something  to  eat.  In 
about  thirty  minutes  he  gave  us  some  dinner. 
Took  John  up  stairs  while  waiting  for  dinner. 
Took  John  down  and  had  him  eat  dinner  with 
us.  That  was  ikejirst  time  I  ever  eat  with  a 
nigger  though.  [Laughter.]  First  time  I  seen 
Jennings  was  after  dinner.  There  was  a  con- 
sid'ble  many  people  about  the  fire  and  in  the 
streets  when  we  first  came  on.  First  intimation 
of  excitement  we  had,  the  landlady  came  to  us  at 
the  dinner  table,  and  told  us  the  hall  was  pretty 
full  of  people  that  seemed  to  be  excited,  and 
she  tho't  it  would  n't  be  safe  for  us  to  try  to  go 
through  the  hall  up  them  stairs.  So  she  took 
us  up  by  another  pair  of  stairs.  Jacob  Wheeler 
came  into  the  room  on  the  second  floor,  and 
talked  about  a  TiaJf  brother  of  his  in  Kentucky. 
His  half  brother's  name  was  not  Wheeler,  but 
Morgan.  He  talked  to  John.  [Witness  re 
peated  what  was  said  as  given  on  the  direct 


examination.]  Wheeler  brought  none  of  his 
brothers  into  this  lower  room.  When  Jennings 
came  in,  he  began  right  off  to  say  that  there 
was  a  large  crowd  about,  with  a  good  many  g-uns. 
Think  his  eyes  did  not  protrude  far.  We  in 
the  room  did  not  experience  any  trouble  from 
the  crowd  while  in  this  lower  room.  Helped 
Jennings  hold  the  door  part  of  the  time.  The 
upper  room  was  next  to  the  roof.  We  South 
erners  call  it  evening  after  12  o'clock  at  noon. 
The  first  alarming  demonstration  I  saw  was  the 
crowd  outside  with  guns.  [Witness  confirmed 
various  other  statements  made  on  direct  exam 
ination.]  The  man  who  called  himself  a  law 
yer  looked  over  the  power  of  attorney  and 
said,  he  supposed  it  was  legal,  but  didn't  know: 
did  n't  see  any  thing  wrong  in  it.  Can't  say 
positively  that  any  one  beside  our  party  was  in 
the  room  when  the  lawyer  read  the  power 
of  attorney.  Have  no  positive  recollection 
whether  Patton  read  the  power  of  attorney  or 
not.  Can't  say  that  anybody  else  read  the  pa 
pers.  Don't  know  that  any  one  else  did.  Have 
no  recollection  that  any  one  else  did.  Think 
Patton  read  the  power  of  attorney.  No  reason 
to  think  any  one  else  did.  John  did  n't  try  to 
get  away  at  all.  The  window  was  about  three 
feet  above  the  floor.  John  didn't  leave  the 
upper  room  after  he  went  in  till  he  was  taken 
out.  He  went  out  upon  the  balcony  from  the 
first  room  we  were  in,  before  we  went  up.  Pos 
itively  did  not  come  down  from  the  upper  room. 
Jennings  told  John  there  were  some  persons 
out  there  who  wanted  to  know  whether  he 
wanted  to  go  back,  and  he  might  go  out  and  tell 
them  if  he  wanted  to.  He  had  not  before  man 
ifested  any  special  anxiety  to  make  a  farewell 
speech  to  that  congregation.  I  went  out  with 
him,  and  I  think  Jennings  and  Lowe  did.  I 
had  my  "toothpick"  and  revolver,  suppose 
John  knew  it.  John  said  in  substance,  u  My 
master  has  sent  for  me,  and  I  am  goin^  home." 
Am  not  sure  that  John  said  any  thing  else. 
Saw  no  movement  in  the  crowd  inviting  John 
to  conic  down.  There  was  no  hurry  to  get 
John  back.  Jennings  told  him  to  come  in  after 
he  had  got  done  speaking,  and  he  did.  Don't 
know  how  many  were  on  the  platform  when 
John  spoke.  Don't  know  that  there  were  any 
on  it  beside  our  own  party.  I  saw  no  ladder 
during  the  afternoon.  The  crowd  hollered  and 
laughed  as  though  they  were  dreadful  glad 
when  the  nigger  was  gone.  Don't  know  that 
any  one  came  in  by  the  window.  Think  no 
one  did.  Still  they  might.  Last  I  see  of  John, 
he  was  moving  out  of  the  room  with  the  crowd. 
Made  no  attempt  to  hold  on  to  him  after  the 
door  was  opened.  Think  the  door  was  pulled 
open  by  the  crowd  outside.  Neither  of  our 
party  showed  any  of  our  weapons.  Last  I  saw 
of  John  was  from  the  window  as  he  was_  being 
put  into  the  buggy.  Saw  the  buggy  drive  off 
from  where  it  stood. 

Chauncey  Irish,  sivorn.     Resided  in  Welling 
ton  in  September,  1858.  ,  On  the  13th,  was 


30 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


about  "the  centre."  Don't  know  defendant. 
Supposed  he  was  a  colored  man. 

Bela  Farr,  called.  Resides  in  Oberlin.  Was 
at  Wellington  on  the  day  of  the  rescue. 
Reached  Wellington  about  1  o'clock.  Anson 
P.  Dayton  rode  with  me.  Saw  nothing  out  of 
the  way  there.  There  had  been  a  fire  that 
morning,  and  some  were  out  looking  at  the  ru 
ins.  Remained  some  twenty-five  or  thirty  min 
utes.  Went  thence  to  Ashland.  Saw  none  of 
the  party  who  were  with  the  negro.  Got  back 
to  Oberlin  about  10  or  11  o'clock  next  day. 
Know  defendant.  Some  two  or  three  evenings 
after  this,  I  heard  defendant  and  another  man 
talking  as  they  passed  my  door.  It  was  9  £  or  10 
o'clock.  Too  dark  to  see  him.  Did  n't  see  him. 
Caught  but  a  few  words.  Only  heard  defendant 
say,  that  "  if  taking  him  and  bringing  him  from 
Wellington  is  a  crime,  I  suppose  I  am  guilty." 
Don't  know  what  they  were  talking  about,  or 
what  they  meant.  Heard  nothing  else. 

Barnabas  Meacham,  sicorn.  Resided  in  Wel 
lington  last  September.  Was  present  when 
the  crowd  assembled  and  rescued  the  negro 
John.  Think  they  gathered  pretty  soon  after 
dinner.  Don't  know  defendant  Negro  was 
carried  from  the  steps  and  put  into  a  buggy, 
and  the  man  that  was  in  the  buggy  drove  off 
at  pretty  good  jog.  Saw  only  one  in  the  buggy 
(beside  negro).  Went  into  the  room  where 
the  negro  was  as  many  as  three  times.  Should 
think  there  were  from  five  hundred  to  one 
thousand  in  the  crowd.  Saw  some  men  with 
guns.  Quite  a  good  many.  The  crowd  urged 
me  to  go  on  and  make  the  arrest.  I  had  a 
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  men  who  had  the 
negro.  Esquire  Bennett  and  Mr.  Dixon  went 
in  with  me.  John  Mandeville,  William  Soules, 
and  William  Sciplcs  went  in  with  me  at  my 
request.  Saw  in  the  room  only  the  parties 
having  the  negro,  perha*ps  the  landlord,  and  the 
men  1  requested  to  go  in  with  me.  I  went  into 
the  uppermost  room.  Examined  the  power  of 
attorney.  Told  the  crowd  that  if  they  would 
make  me  secure  by  bond  I  would  make  the  ar 
rest.  I  asked  Lowe  to  go  out  and  read  his  au 
thority  to  the  crowd.  He  at  first  declined,  but 
I  told  him  I  would  try  and  see  him  safe  back  in 
his  room.  So  he  went.  We  went  down  and 
out  of  the  house,  a  little  aside  in  the  street,  and 
got  up  on  to  some  steps,  perhaps  two  or  three 
rods  south  of  the  hotel,  and  he  begun  to  read 
his  papers,  and  some  one  took  hold  and  read  it 
for  him.  This  must  have  been  an  hour,  more 
or  less,  before  the  negro  was  taken  away. 
Then  Lowe  went  back  into  the  house.  Some 
of  the  crowd  said  they  was  satisfied ;  others 
gave  up  that  I  had  no  power  to  act,  and  noth 
ing  farther  to  do.  Couldn't  tell  that  others 
said  any  thing.  When  I  went  down,  after  ex 
amining  the  papers,  told  the  crowd  that  they 
had  a  warrant,  and  I  was  satisfied  I  could  do 
nothing.  Said  nothing  about  a  power  of  attor 
ney.  Saw  a  ladder.  Don't  know  who  put  it 
up.  Saw  three  or  four  go  up.  B'lieve  they 


went  up  purty  near  the  garret  window.  Mean 
the  ladder  went  up  near  the  garret  window. 
Whether  they  got  off  on  the  porch,  or  went  up 
to  the  window,  I  couldn't  say. 

Cross-examined.  I  proposed  to  Lowe  to  go 
to  the  Town-House,  and  he  declined.  The 
hotel  fronts  west.  Those  standino-  in  front, 
and  east  of  the  house,  probably  could  not  hear 
when  the  warrant  was  read.  The  warrant  was 
read  to  the  crowd.  No  oilier  paper  was  read. 
Am  constable,  and  rather  think  I  know  a  war 
rant  from  a  power  of  attorney.  Heard  no 
threats  made  by  the  crowd. 

Direct  resumed.  Think  no  paper  ivas  shown 
me  except  the  warrant.  If  I  said  so  a  little  back, 
I  was  mistaken,  I  think.  The  paper  I  saw  was 
signed,  I  believe,  by  a  U.  S.  Commissioner.  I 
called  the  attention  of  the  crowd  to  the  fact, 
that  Lowe  was  abtfut  to  read.  Was  about  these 
premises  all  the  afternoon. 

Cross  resumed.  During  the  entire  afternoon 
have  no  recollection  that  these  men  gave  me  to 
understand  that  they  were  attempting  to  carry 
this  man  back  by  virtue  of  any  paper  except 
the  warrant.  Think  nothing  was  said  about  a 
power  of  attorney. 

David  L.  Wadsworth,  called.  Reside  in  Wel 
lington.  Am  not  the  landlord  there.  Was 
there  on  13th  September  last.  Should  think 
there  were  from  four  hundred  to  one  thousand 
in  the  crowd.  The  general  topic  of  conversa 
tion  was  in  relation  to  the  slave.  Some  said 
they'd  pull  our  house  down  if  the  slave  didn't 
come  out.  Some  said,  "  Bring  him  out."  Some 
said,  "  Break  in  the  house."  Saw  in  the  crowd 
Loren  Wadsworth,  Loveland,  Sciples,  Watson, 
Bushnell,  the  defendant,  two  or  three  Wheelers, 
Lovejoy,  Warner,  Bradner,  Howk,  Phelps,  Bas- 
sett,  Hines,  Perkins,  l)e  Wolfe.  First  time  I 
saw  defendant,  he  came  up  and  spoke  to  me. 
Don't  know  as  he  said  more  than  to  pass  the  time 
of  day.  This  was  in  front  of  the  hotel,  sometime 
between  3  and  5  o'clock,  and  from  one  to  three 
rods  from  the  hotel.  He  was  on  foot  at  that 
time.  The  buggy  which  took  off  the  negro 
was  in  front  of  the  hotel,  a  few  rods  oflf.  Should 
judge  defendant  was  between  buggy  and  hotel 
when  I  saw  him.  He  was  then  on  foot.  Don't 
recollect  of  seeing  him  again  till  I  saw  him  go 
off  in  the  buggy.  I  am  brother  of  the  land 
lord.  Saw  the  nigger  put  into  the  buggy.  He 
was  hurried  along  pretty  lively.  Could  hardly 
tell  whether  he  touched  the  ground  or  not.  Af 
ter  the  nigger  was  put  in,  defendant  drove  off. 
Did  n't  notice  as  there  was  any  one  else  in  the 
buggy.  It  was  a  noisy  assembly.  Good  deal 
of  hurrahing;  most  of  it  as  the  negro  was 
driven  away. 

Cross-examined.  Saw  Lowe,  as  he  was  said 
to  be  reading  a  paper,  but  could  not  hear  him. 
Two  thirds  of  the  crowd  were  as  far,  or  farther, 
from  Lowe  than  myself.  Don't  know  what 
was  read,  of  course. 

Isaac  Bennett,  sivorn.  Reside  in  Wellington. 
Resided  there  in  September  last.  Was  pres- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


31 


ent  at  the  time  of  the  crowd  on  the  13th.  The 
most  part  of  the  gathering  was  in  consequence 
of  the  fire  that  occurred  there  in  the  forenoon. 
Miirlit  have  been  two  hundred  or  three  hun 
dred  in  all  about  the  hotel.  Might  have  seen 
fifty  guns  in  the  crowd.  The  remarks  about 
in  the  crowd  were,  that  they  had  come  up  there 
after  a  negro  there  was  in  the  hotel.  Some 
said  they'd  have  him  if  they  tore  the  house  down. 
Some  said  that  corner  would  be  as  bad  as  the 
other  corner,  —  the  one  that  was  burnt.  Saw  a 
ladder  put  up.  Think  it  was  taken  down.  Pre 
vious  to  the  ladder  being  set  up,  I  was  sent  for 
to  go  up  into  the  room  where  Lowe,  Jennings, 
and  others  were.  Mr.  Meacham  came  down 
and  asked  me.  Lowe  told  me  it  was  said,  out 
in  the  crowd,  that  he  was  holding  the  boy  in 
custody  without  any  legal  process  whatever. 
Told  me  that  if  I  would  go  down  and  tell  the 
people,  and  they  would  fall  back,  he  would  go 
to  the  Town-House  and  exhibit  his  papers. 
Went  out  on  to  the  balcony  and  spoke  to  the 
crowd,  and  asked  if  they  would  n't  hear  me  a 
minute.  There  was  a  colored  man  in  the  crowd 
spoke  up  and  said,  "  Bring  down  the  man," 
"  We  '11  have  the  man,"  and  pointed  his  gun  up 
towards  me.  It  did  n't  seem  to  be  the  intention 
of  the  crowd  to  listen.  A  ladder  was  set  up. 
I  went  up  and  took  hold  of  the  ladder  to  throw 
it  down.  A  man  tried  to  come  up  on  it,  but 
was  pulled  back  by  some  persons.  I  told  him 
not  to  come  up.  Don't  know  whether  the  lad 
der  was  taken  down  or  not.  Then  I  went 
down  stairs,  and  out  ten  or  fifteen  rods  from  the 
house.  Lowe  showed  me,  before  I  went  down, 
a  warrant  issued  by  a  U.  S.  Commissioner,  and 
a  power  of  attorney.  When  I  went  out  on  to 
the  ground,  told  several  persons  what  I  knew 
about  the  papers.  Recollect  Esquire  Howk 
was  one  of  them,  also  a  man  called  Langston, 
and  Constable  Meacham,  and  several  others. 
Recollect,  also,  Esquire  De  Wolfe.  Told  them 
that,  as  far  as  I  knew,  the  papers  were  legal. 
Think  Langston  urged  the  constable  very 
strongly  to  execute  a  warrant  which  had  been 
issued  against  Lowe,  I  think.  Don't  know  who 
was  most  active  in  the  crowd.  Was  n't  in  the 
crowd  much.  A  good  deal  was  said.  A  good 
deal  of  confusion.  Saw  the  current  that  moved 
from  the  house  to  the  carriage,  and  inferred 
from  the  movement  that  the  negro  was  put  into 
the  carriage  and  driven  off.  Saw  Lowe  come 
down  and  mount  the  steps.  Some  one  called 
the  crowd  to  order,  and  said  that  Lowe  would 
read  the  warrant.  Crowd  pretty  generally  at 
tended.  Think  I  was  not  near  enough  to  hear 
the  reading.  There  was  something  read. 
Could  n't  hear  what  it  was.  Think  two  hun 
dred  or  three  hundred  were  gathered  round 
Lowe.  Think  Lowe  himself  read.  Don't 
know.  Did  n't  care  to  hear. 

Court  adjourned  till  9  o'clock  next  morning. 

FOURTH  DAY. —  9,  A.  M. 
Isaac  Bennett,  cross-examined.     Think  it  was 


Lowe  showed  me  the  paper.  A  paper  pur 
porting  to  have  been  signed  by  a  U.  S.  Com 
missioner.  In  speaking  of  a  warrant  I  mean 
this  paper.  Some  person  gave  me  a  paper 
which  he  said  was  a  power  of  attorney.  Can 
not  now  identify  the  man  who  gave  it  to  me. 
Looked  it  over  and  saw  it  purported  to  be  a 
power  of  attorney.  In  imparting  the  informa 
tion  I  had  gained  to  the  crowd,  think  I  confined 
myself  to  mention  of  the  warrant..  Might  have 
said  "  papers."  Do  not  know  what  Lowe  read. 
He  said  he  was  going  to  read  the  warrant.  I 
understood  it  to  be  the  warrant  which  he  read. 
Saw  no  other  paper  read.  Did  not  hear  this. 
Was  Justice  of  the  Peace.  My  intention  was 
to  preserve  the  peace.  I  had  a  pistol.  Stand 
ing  at  the  head  of  the  ladder  I  pointed  the  pis 
tol  down  at  the  crowd.  The  talk  in  the  crowd 
was  that  the  man  was  kidnapped  without  legal 
process  of  any  kind.  Some  insisted  until  the 
warrant  was  read  that  there  were  no  papers. 
Supposed  myself  that  it  was  Mr.  Lowe  who 
claimed  to  have  control  of  the  negro.  Supposed 
so  throughout  the  whole  affair.  It  might  have 
been  held  in  the  crowd  that  the  papers  were 
spurious.  Did  not  hear  it  so  held.  Was  not 
much  in  the  crowd. 

Direct  resumed.  Saw  no  address  or  mani 
festation  from  Mr.  Lowe  to  the  crowd  except 
the  reading  of  the  warrant.  Think  Lowe  be 
gan  to  read  and  some  one  else  took  the  paper 
from  him  and  finished.  It  was  said  in  the 
crowd  that  the  negro  was  a  free  man,  taken  by 
force  and  without  legal  process  from  Oberlin, 
and  brought  thus  to  ''Wellington.  Did  n't  ob 
serve  that  information  about  the  papers  held  by 
Lowe  made  any  difference  in  the  crowd.  Heard 
a  black  man  say  the  boy  had  been  kidnapped. 
Did  not  tell  this  black  man  what  I  had  discovered 
up  in  the  room.  Had  no  conversation  with  the 
boy  John.  Had  no  individual  conversation 
with  any  colored  man  in  the  crowd. 

E.  S.  Kinney,  sworn.  Was  in  Oberlin  in 
September,  1858.  Was  at  Oberlin  on  the  day 
the  negro  was  taken  away  from  Wellington. 
There  was  considerable  agitation  in  Oberlin. 
It  commenced  between  the  hours  of  one  and 
two  o'clock.  The  principal  gathering  seemed 
to  be  in  front  of  Commercial  Block.  First  dis 
covered  the  crowd  about  two  o'clock.  The 
crowd  was  on  Main  street.  Fitch's  bookstore 
is  on  College  street.  Know  defendant.  Did  n't 
see  him  in  the  crowd.  Saw  him  passing  around 
the  corner  of  Main  and  College  streets.  He 
was  walking.  Don't  recollect  seeing  any  one 
with  him.  He  was  walking  rapidly  toward 
Fitch's  bookstore.  There  were  only  a  few  about 
Fitch's  bookstore.  Saw  him  no  more  about 
there.  About  an  hour  after,  think  I  saw  de 
fendant  and  Wall  in  a  buggy,  passing  down 
Main  street  south,  toward  Wellington.  Noticed 
nothing  in  their  manner  peculiar,  except  that  I 
think  Wall  had  a  gun,  which  was  nothing  pe 
culiar  for  that  day.  This  was  about  3  o'clock. 
I  went  south  on  foot  part  of  the  way,  and  in  a 


82 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


two-horse  wagon  the  rest  of  the  way.  There 
were  nine  in  the  wagon.  Can  name  only  one, 
Mr.  Lang.  Walked  about  a  mile.  Got  to 
Wellington  at  sunset,  or  a  little  after.  Saw  de 
fendant  there.  Met  him  in  a  buggy,  just  before 
reaching  the  square  of  the  village.  Winsor 
was  in  the  buggy,  I  think,  with  defendant.  Also 
a  colored  man  they  called,  in  Oberlin,  John. 
Met  them  two  or  three  rods  north  of  N.  E. 
corner  of  the  Public  Square.  Think  defendant 
drove.  Horse  was  on  the  jump.  Think  Win 
sor  had  a  gun  swinging  it,  and  think  Winsor 
cried  out,  "  all  right !"  Crowd  was  shouting 
loudly.  Defendant's  attention  seemed  directed 
mainly  to  the  reining  of  the  horse.  Don't  know 
where  negro  John  was  conducted  to.  Returned 
to  Oberlin  soon  after. 

Was  there  any  public  demonstration  at  Ober 
lin  that  night  ? 

Objected  to. 

Withdrawn. 

Did  n't  see  defendant  again  that  night. 

Cross-examined.  About  a  week  before  this 
Rescue,  heard  that  a  family  by  the  name  of 
Wagoner  narrowly  escaped  kidnapping.  It 
was  also  universal  town  talk  that  there  were 
several  Southerners  at  Wack's  tavern,  whose 
business  it  was  supposed  to  be  to  seize  and 
carry  off  some  of  the  citizens  of  the  place. 
And  the  apprehension  was  that  they  would 
attempt  to  execute  their  business  in  the  night, 
or  when  a  considerable  portion  of  the  citizens 
were  away.  The  talk  of  the  crowd  was,  and 
their  understanding  was  before  starting,  that  a 
colored  man  had  been  decoyed  out  of  town, 
kidnapped,  and  carried  to  Wellington.  I  un 
derstood  that  the  object  of  the  crowd,  in  pur 
suing,  was  to  thwart  an  attempt  at  kidnapping. 
Wras  on  the  way  to  my  recitation,  which  was  at 
two  o'clock,  when  I  first  heard  and  saw  the 
crowd.  Think  defendant  went  among  the  last 
of  the  first  parties,  about  an  hour  after  two 
o'clock.  After  the  first  part  of  the  crowd  had 
gone,  a  message  was  sent  back.  One  night, 
not  long  before,  there  was  a  cry  of  murder  near 
my  room. 

Direct  resumed.  The  rumor  in  the  crowd 
was  —  I  did  not  hear  the  person  who  brought 
the  message  —  that  the  message  was  a  call  ibr 
more  men.  Don't  know  who  brought  the  mes 
sage.  After  the  message  the  second  part  of  th( 
crowd  went  down.  All  went  who  could  get 
conveyances.  I  knew  that  John  told  me  he 
was  a  slave.  Don't  know  what  others  knew 
about  it.  If  the  owner  of  the  slave  should 
come  and  take  his  negro  without  any  papers,  ] 
should  not  call  it  an  arrest.  If  an  agent  of  the 
owner  should  come  with  power  of  attorney  and 
proper  warrant,  I  should  call  it  an  arrest 
There  was  apprehension  that  fugitives  and  free 
colored  jwrsons  would  be  taken  away.  Mr 
John  Lang  and  several  other  persons  communi 
cated  these  apprehensions  to  me,  especially  aftei 
the  Wagoner  affair.  My  purpose  in  going  to 
Wellington  was  to  put  myself  in  a  way  to  do 


by  others  as  I  would  like  to  be  done  by  [laugh 
ter]  ;  to  rescue  John  from  the  persons  who  had 
seized  him.  Why,  or  for  what  purpose,  they 
had  seized  him  I  do  not  know.  Am  confident 
the  crowd  did  not  rescue  John,  supposing  him 
to  have  been  seized  as  a  fugitive.  The  cry  of 
murder  referred  to  was  a  mile  or  more  from 
where  the  negro  Frank  got  his  throat  cut 
Don't  know  what  caused  the  cry  of  murder. 
It  was  said  to  come  from  the  Wagoner  family, 
It  was  supposed  and  said  that  Southerners  had 
carried  off  John  because  Southerners  are  the 
men  that  usually  carry  off  people  !  [Laughter.] 

Cross  resumed.  Those  in  the  wagon  knew 
by  hearsay  that  John  was  a  fugitive ;  but  I  did 
not  know,  and  think  none  of  the  others  knew 
that  John  G.  Bacon  was  the  owner  of  John, 
that  Jennings  was  the  attorney,  or  that  Lowe 
had  any  paper.  I  had  no  intention  of  obstruct 
ing  the  legal  arrest  of  John  by  his  owner  or 
attorney,  nor  do  I  know  of  any  person  who  by 
any  act  led  me  to  suppose  he  had  any  such  in 
tention. 

Direct  resumed.  I  knew  that  a  power  of 
attorney  would  authorize  a  person  to  act  as 
agent  in  making  an  arrest. 

Chas.  T.  Marks,  called.  Was  in  the  Court 
Room  day  before  yesterday,  a  few  minutes, 
while  testimony  was  being  given.  Reside  in 
Oberlin.  Was  there  13th  September,  1858. 
Went  to  Wellington.  Crowd  began  to  assem 
ble  about  one  o'clock.  Was  in  the  crowd  but 
a  moment.  Did  n't  see  defendant  at  Oberlin  at 
all.  Started  for  Wellington  about  two  o'clock, 
perhaps.  Was  probably  about  forty  minutes 
making  the  nine  miles.  Wack  and  Wood  were 
with  me.  Saw  a  crowd  at  Wellington.  Put 
up  my  horse,  staid  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  in  the 
crowd,  and  then  went  upon  the  other  side  of 
the  street.  Was  at  Wellington  till  the  negro 
was  taken  away.  Saw  defendant.  Heard  no 
words  from  him.  Saw  him  with  a  whip,  on  foot. 
Afterward  saw  him  sitting  in  a  buggy.  Saw 
him  on  foot,  in  the  crowd,  half  an  hour  to  an 
hour  before  the  Rescue.  Did  n't  see  him  address 
anybody.  Saw  him  only  in  front  of  the  hotel, 
perhaps  twenty  feet  from  the  portico.  After 
John  was  taken  away,  saw  something  like  Lowe 
making  an  address  or  reading  to  the  crowd. 
Saw  no  such  reading  by  Lowe  or  his  party  be 
fore  the  negro  was  taken  away.  Negro  came 
out  on  the  balcony,  and  said  something  to  the 
crowd.  Saw  the  negro  brought  out.  Did  n't 
see  defendant  before  the  negro  was  brought  out 
on  to  the  portico.  Saw  the  negro  brought  out 
from  the  door.  Did  not  see  him  put  into  the 
buggy.  Don't  know  who  wa's  in  the  buggy. 

Cross-examined.  —  Helped  Wood  put  up  a 
ladder. 

For  what  purpose  did  you  help  put  up  the 
ladder  ? 

Objected  to. 

Court  overruled  testimony.  [Just  such  testi 
mony  was  drawn  out  by  the  Prosecution,  ten 
minutes  before.]  Nothing  was  said-  between 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


Wood  and  self  about  the  purpose  for  which  the 
ladder  was  put  up. 

CJiaunceij  Wack,  sworn.  [Defence  asked 
leave  to  introduce  testimony  to  show  that  the 
witness  was  in  Court  after  the  order  was  given  by 
the  Court  that  witnesses  should  retire  and  remain 
out  till  called.  Court  refused  the  petition,  but 
directed  the  District- Attorney  to  ask  the  witness. 
Witness  said  he  had  been  in  the  room,  but 
heard  only  a  little  testimony.  Had  been  told 
that  witnesses  must  keep  out  of  the  Court 
Room,  but  did  n't  know  it  was  an  order  of  the 
Court.  Was  not  present  when  the  order  was 

E'ven.  By  leave  of  the  Court,  Ansel  W. 
yman  testified  that  the  witness  was  in  the 
Court  Room  when  the  Court  gave  the  order. 
The  Court  ordered  the  examination  to  go  on.] 
Reside  in  Oberlin.  Keep  public  house. 
Was  there  on  September  13th  last.  Went  to 
Wellington.  Staid  till  the  negro  was  rescued. 
Did  n't  see  Bushnell  at  Oberlin  or  Wellington. 
Was  in  the  crowd  at  both  places.  A  lawyer 
named  Dickson  came  out  of  the  hotel  at  Wel 
lington  and  came  into  the  crowd  and  said  to 
those  near  him  that  he  had  examined  the 
papers  by  which  the  men  held  the  negro,  and 
thought  they  were  all  right.  Some  replied  they 
didn't  care  for  papers  or  any  thing;  they'd 
have  the  nigger  anyhow.  Mr.  Patton,  who 
sits  yonder,  came  out,  I  think  soon  after 
Dickson,  and  stood  on  the  lower  porch  in  front, 
and  seemed  to  be  endeavoring  to  still  the 
crowd,  and  told  them  that  they  hed  papers 
which  he  thought  were  all  right,  and  advised 
taking  some  legal  course.  Don't  know  what  the 
crowd  said  to  this.  They  listened  a  little 
while  and  purty  soon  got  noisy  again.  After 
wards  a  good  many  advised  breaking  into  the 
house  and  taking  him  out  anyhow,  and  purty 
soon  they  did  take  him  out.  'Got  back  to 
Oberlin  about  candle-light.  Didn't  see  the 
buggy  in  which  the  nigger  went  off.  Saw  the 
rush  when  the  nigger  come  out  of  the  house. 
Buggy  went  north.  Don't  know  as  there  was 
a  meeting  that  night  at  Oberlin.  Heard  there 
was.  Heard  a  great  deal  of  cheering  up  that 
way.  Have  no  reason  to  suppose  defendant 
was  at  the  meeting.  Heard  a  great  deal  said 
in  the  crowd  at  Wellington.  Some  said  they  'd 
tear  the  house  down  but  that  they  'd  have  the 
nigger ;  they  were  Higher  Law  men,  etc. 
They  ojrew  still  about  train-time,  as  I  after 
wards  learned  because  they  expected  a  de 
spatch  had  been  sent  to  Cleveland  for  U.  S. 
troops,  and  they  waited  to  see  if  they  had 
come.  Some  advised  to  make  a  rush  before 
train-time,  but  they  wa'n't  agreed  enough. 
Think  the  train  passed  about  five  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon.  Don't  know  what  day  of  the 
month  the  Rescue  took  place.  It  took  place 
about  sundown  or  a  little  after,  between  five 
and  six  o'clock,  I  should  think.  Remember 
the  Rescue  was  a  few  days  after  the  tenth  of 
September.  Don't  think  Patton  brought  out 
any  papers.  Didn't  see  any  one  mount 

5 


steps  and  read  papers.  Was  out  of  the  crowd 
across  the  street  perhaps  half  the  time.  Saw 
John  come  out  on  the  balcony.  He  came  out 
and  a  man  with  him  and  some  one  stated  he 
was  brought  out  for  the  purpose  of  telling  the 
crowd  whether  he  wanted  to  go  back  to  Ken 
tucky.  He  did  commence  telling  his  story, 
but  didn't  get  through  with  it,  because  the 
crowd  below  told  him  not  to  say  any  thing, 
but  to  come  down,  jump  down,  and  they  would 
protect  him.  He  didn't  say  he  wanted  to  go 
back  but  I  think  he  was  just  a  going  to,  when 
they  hollered  to  him.  Saw  a  number  as  soon 
as  he  come  out  on  to  the  porch  lift  their  guns 
toward  the  balcony,  cock  them,  and  tell  him 
to  jump  down  and  they  would  protect  him. 
Was  not  in  the  room  myself  at  any  time. 
Saw  a  rush  at  the  backside  of  the  house  with 
weapons.  Some  young  men  belonging  to  the 
house  stood  at  the  door  and  told  them  they 
could  n't  come  in.  One  of  these  had  a  pistol 
and  told  'em  they  could  not  come  in  there. 
Saw  the  rush  which  broke  in  by  the  front  door 
just  as  the  negro  was  brought  out.  Think 
some  went  up  by  the  ladder,  but  some  one 
stood  at  the  top  with  a  pistol  to  keep  them 
back.  A  ladder  was  put  up  and  a  rush  was 
made  before  the  train  come  in,  and  again 
afterward.  It  was  generally  understood 
through  the  crowd  that  the  men  had  papers. 
Some  of  the  crowd  advised  peace,  and  some  a 
rush. 

Cross-examined.  Have  kept  tavern  at  Ober 
lin  some  ten  or  twelve  years.  Had  had  no 
reason  at  all  to  anticipate  a  crowd  that  day. 
Jennings,  Lowe,  Davis,  and  Mitchell,  put  up 
at  my  house.  Jennings  had  been  there  no 
longer  than  Lowe,  I  think.  Don't  know  how 
long  they  had  been  about.  They  had  gener 
ally  been  off  daytimes,  lodging  with  me.  Did 
not  know  that  there  was  an  intention  to  run 
off  a  nigger.  One  of  the  men  had  asked  me 
about  Frank.  AVas  surprised  to  see  the  crowd. 
Went  to  Wellington  to  return  a  $10  bill  I  had 
taken  of  Jennings,  which  all  the  money  judges 
I  found  in  Oberlin  thought  was  counterfeit. 
At  Wellington  found  the  bill  was  perfectly 
good.  Had  some  curiosity  about  what  was  to 
be  done  at  Wellington,  but  should  not  hev 
gone  if  it  had  n't  been  for  the  bill.  Saw 
people  coming  in  from  all  quarters  —  not  all 
Oberlinites  by  considerable.  A  good  many 
had  gathered  to  see  the  ruins  of  the  fire  which 
was  still  smoking  just  opposite  the  hotel. 
There  was  about  fifty  at  the  hotel  and  one 
hundred  at  the  fire.  I  got  out  nearest  to  the 
nigger  crowd.  Did  n't  try  to  hear.  Did  n't 
think  why  the  crowd  was  gathered  just  then. 
After  standing  around  about  half  an  hour 
went  across  the  street  and  sat  down  to  talk 
with  some  old  friends.  Sat  there  fifteen  or 
twenty  minutes  and  then  went  back  to  the 
vicinity  of  the  hotel.  Then  went  over  to  the 
fire.  So  kept  moving  about  the  square  all  the 
afternoon.  Almost  constantly  in  sight  of  the 


34 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


front  of  the  hotel.  Was  in  front  of  the  tavern 
and  heard  the  train  come.  Staid  right  there 
till  the  rush  was  made.  Then  I  expected  there 
would  be  some  shootin'  going  on,  and  I  did  n't 
want  to  die  just  then,  so  I  left.  [Laughter.] 
Was  in  front  of  the  hotel  when  the  negro 
John  was  brought  out  on  the  balcony  to  talk  to 
the  crowd.  This  was  very  soon  after  I  first 
got  there.  Am  quite  sure  Davis  was  with  him. 
Did  n't  see  Jennings  there,  nor  Lowe,  that  I 
remember.  Don't  remember  any  one  but 
Davis.  Did  n't  understand  him  to  say  exactly 
that  he  wanted  to  go  back,  but  that  he  was  in 
the  hands  of  the  law  and  s'posed  he  might  as 
well  go  back.  Dickson  came  out  either  a  little 
before  or  a  little  after  the  train  came  in,  and 
seemed  remarkably  cool  for  him,  and  said  to 
those  of  the  crowd  near  me  that  he  had  exam 
ined  the  papers,  and  as  far  as  he  could  see 
they  were  all  right.  Defendant  was  not  in  the 
crowd.  Saw  nothing  of  defendant  that  day. 
Afterward  Fatten  came  out  and  said  that  he 
had  seen  papers  which  appeared  to  be  all  right, 
and  he  thought  they  had  better  take  a  legal 
course,  and  not  be  trying  to  get  him  off  in  this 
shape.  Recess  till  2,  p.  M. 

FOURTH  DAY.  —  2,  P.M. 

Cliauncey  Wack.  Cross-examination  con 
tinued.  [Wikiess  repeated  most  that  he  had 
stated  on  direct  examination.]  Got  hungry  the 
latter  part  of  the  afternoon,  and  went  around 
to  the  kitchen  to  try  and  get  something  to  eat. 
The  women  was  there,  but  would  n't  let  us  in  ; 
tho't  we  were  part  of  the  rescue  crowd. 
Didn't  know  any  thin^  about  the  plan  to 
decoy  the  negro  out  of  town.  Mitchell  told 
me  a  day  or  two  before  that  he  was  lookin'  for 
negroes.  Mitchell  kept  very  close  in  the  house 
while  he  was  stopping  at  my  house.  But  Jen 
nings  was  gone  out  most  of  the  time. 

Direct  resumed.  Warren's  barn  was  burnt 
while  Mitchell  was  at  my  house,  but  that  night 
Jennings  was  gone.  Think  it  was  Saturday 
night.  The  negro's  throat  was  cut  while  Mitch 
ell  was  there,  too.  Don't  remember  what 
night  that  was.  .  Don't  remember  which  hap 
pened  first.  Heard  that  the  throat  cutting 
was  in  a  fight  between  the  niggers  them 
selves. 

Cross  resumed.  Jennings  was  frequently 
gone  nights  while  stopping  with  me,  from  first 
to  last.  Warren's  boy  is  part  white.  Lowe  and 
Davis  came  to  my  house  on  Monday  morning 
with  their  team,  had  it  fed,  but  not  unhar 
nessed,  and  went  off  again  at  10  or  11  o'clock. 
Have  no  recollection  of  their  coming  in  the 
night  of  Sunday.  They  came  Monday,  to 
best  of  my  recollection.  Only  one  of  the 
party  staid  with  me  Sunday  night,  I  think. 
Think  it  was  Mitchell,  am  not  positive. 

Oliver  S.  Wadsworth,  sworn.  Am  not  keeper 
of  public  house  at  Wellington,  but  was  such 
last  September.  Was  at  home  on  the  day  of 
the  rescue.  Think  the  first  of  the  rescuers 


came  between  three  or  four  o'clock.  Didn't 
know  any  of  them.  Some  asked  to  see  the 
negro,  and-  I  consented.  Don't  know  who 
they  were,  or  whether  they  went  into  the 
room.  Was  told  that  some  of  these  persons 
were  Watson,  Patton,  Lincoln,  and  Scrimgeour. 
Heard  that  the  crowd  were  after  a  negro  who 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Marshal.  Can't  say 
what  part  or  position  Watson  had  in  the 
crowd.  Can't  say  what  was  said  out  doors. 
Was  in  the  house  most  of  the  time.  Should 
think  there  were  somewhere  near  five  hundred 
in  the  crowd.  Might  have  been  twenty  to 
seventy-five  bearing  arms.  Can't  tell  how 
many.  Had  some  conversation  with  Mr.  Lin 
coln.  Think  Lincoln  said  they  was  bound  to 
have  him  any  way.  Told  him  there  was  a 
legal  way  to  get  at  it  without  having  a  riot. 
Lincoln  said  what  was  done  must  be  done  be 
fore  the  train  from  Cleveland  came,  as  there 
was  a  rumor  that  a  despatch  had  been  sent  to 
Cleveland  for  United  States  forces.  The  train 
was  due  at  5:13.  Lincoln  was  a  stranger  to 
me.  Told  him  I  didn't  think  any  despatch 
had  been  sent.  Had  some  conversation  with 
Matthew  Gillett.  He  told  me  that  the  best 
thing  I  could  do  was  to  open  my  house  and  let 
the  crowd  go  in  and  take  out  the  negro.  I 
told  him  I  did  n't  want  my  house  ransacked  by 
a  mob.  He  proposed  to  have  a  committee  of 
ten  to  twenty  go  in  and  confer  with  the  men 
peaceably,  and  see  what  could  be  done  in  a 
proper  manner.  I  told  him  I  had  no  objec 
tions  to  such  a  committee  going  in  ;  they  might 
go  in  and  confer.  This  was  in  the  back  yard ; 
a  good  many  persons  being  in  hearing.  Don't 
know  whether  any  such  committee  was  chosen. 
At  his  request,  I  mentioned  several  names  of 
persons  who  I  was  perfectly  willing  should  be 
on  the  committee.  Armed  men  occupied  posi 
tions  all  'round  the  house.  Don't  know  who 
stationed  them.  I  was  in  the  hall  when  the 
crowd  rushed  down ;  did  n't  identify  the  negro, 
but  the  cry  was  that  John  was  gone. 

William  B.  Warden,  called.  Live  in  Ober- 
lin.  Lived  there  in  September  last.  Was  at 
Oberlin  on  the  return  of  the  rescuers  from 
Wellington.  Did  not  see  the  negro  John, 
Saw  defendant.  It  was  some  dark  when  they 
came  back.  Heard  defendant  say  nothing.  A 
gentleman  in  the  wagon  in  which  defendant 
had  been,  said  they  had  got  John.  Defendant 
had  gone  into  the  store.  Don't  know  whether 
defendant  heard  the  remark.  Wagon  stood  in 
front  of  the  store.  Defendant  had  gone  in. 
Don't  know  how  far  in.  Store  door  stood  open. 

Richard  K.  Whitney,  sworn.  Reside  in  Ober 
lin.  Remember  the  rescue  day.  Was  in 
Oberlin.  Don't  know  when  John  was  brought 
back  to  Oberlin,  or  when  taken  away,  or  how, 
or  any  thing  about  it. 

The  prosecution  here  rested. 

District  Attorney  asked  leave  to  recall  one 
more  witness. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


35 


John  G.  Bacon,  recalled.  Direct  examination. 
In  conversation  between  Jennings  and  myself 
after  his  first  return  from  Oberlin,  Jennings 
asked  me  whether  I  thought  Loyd  would  ^give 
him  any  thing  for  catching  his  nigger.  Told 
him  I  did  n't  know  any  thin"  about  that,  but  I 
had  offered  publicly  one  half  of  what  the  nig 
ger  would  sell  for,  and  he  might  consider  this 
offer  open  to  himself.  He  did  n't  say  whether 
he  would  or  would  not  accept  these  terms,  but 
finally  said  he  would  go,  and  I  considered  my 
self  thus  obligated  to  pay  him  one  half  the  nig 
ger  would  sell  for  if  he  brought  him  back,  but 
not  any  thing  unless  he  brought  him  back. 
There  was  no  other  contract 

Prosecution  rested. 

Witnesses  for  the  defence  sworn. 

Lewis  D.  Boynton,  called.  Reside  in  the  town 
of  Russia,  about  thirty  rods  over  three  and  one 
half  miles  from  Oberlin  Church.  Was  at  home 
on  Sunday  before  the  Rescue.  Was  not  at 
home  on  Monday.  Went  to  Ashland.  S'pose 
I  shall  not  be  driven  out  of  the  Court  House  if 
I  say  I  w&nt  as  delegate  to  a  Democratic  con 
vention.  [Mr.  RIDDLE  :  Not  out  of  this  Court 
House,  certainly.]  [Laughter.]  Saw  Jennings 
for  the  first  time  in  my  life  on  Sunday,  1 2th  of 
September,  1858.  Got  home  about  11  o'clock 
on  Saturday  night.*  Wife  told  me  there  were 
two  gentlemen,  strangers,  in  the  house  ;  she 
thought  they  had  come  to  buy  cows.  Said  she 
believed  one  of  them  was  from  Columbus.  Told 
her  they  hadn't  come  after  cows  then.  After 
milking  next  morning,  these  gentlemen  came 
down  stairs.  Lowe  came  and  asked  me  if  this 
was  Mr.  Boynton,  etc.  After  breakfast,  went 
out  to  water  my  cattle  down  at  the  creek,  and 
they  followed  me  out,  and  then  for  the  first  time 
Mr.  Lowe  told  me  his  business.  This  was  Sun 
day. 

What  did  he  say  '? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial.  Argued  by  coun 
sel  on  both  sides. 

Objection  sustained.  [Jennings,  by  special 
ruling,  was  allowed  to  give  a  detailed  account 
of  his  visit  to  Boynton.  It  was  understood  by 
both  counsel  and  Court  that  Boynton  would  im 
peach  Jennings.] 

Shakespeare  Boynton,  called.  [Counsel  still 
argued  upon  the  point  just  decided,  by  leave  of 
the  Court,  with  reference  to  a  reconsideration  of 
the  ruling.  Judge  Bliss  for  the  prosecution, 
argued  at  length,  that  it  was  utterly  immaterial 
whether  the  Rescue  was  made  knowingly  (that 
is  knowing  that  the  negro  was  legally  arrested) 
or  not.  It  was  enough  to  show  that  a  rescue 
of  the  negro  from  the  hands  of  the  men  who 
had  him  in  custody  was  made.  The  Court  did 
not  see  fit  to  change  the  ruling.] 

Am  thirteen  years  old.  Expect  I  am  a  son 
of  last  witness,  but  it's  hard  telling  now-a-days ! 
Remember  the  Rescue  day.  Last  I  saw  of  John, 
Lowe  and  Davis  and  Mitchell  were  putting  him 
into  their  wagon,  about  one  and  three  fourths 


miles  northeast  of  Oberlin.  Davis  and  Mitch 
ell  had  hold  of  John.  Lowe  sat  in  the  buggy. 
Just  about  as  soon  as  they  got  even  with  my 
buggy,  Davis  had  his  arm  right  around  John. 
John  sat  in  my  buggy.  John  was  picking  his 
teeth  with  his  jaekknife.  Mitchell  told  him  to 
give  it  to  him.  He  objected.  Mitchell  put  his 
hand  to  his  inside  pocket  and  John  dropped 
the  knife.  Lowe  says  "  bring  him  along."  I 
saw  them  a  few  rods  before  they  came  up.  I  was 
driving  on  a  slow  walk,  they  were  trotting.  I 
was  waiting  for  them.  When  Lowe  said  "  bring 
him  along,"  John  said, "  I  '11  go  with  you,"  Davis 
and  Mitchell  kept  hold  till  they  got  him  in. 
Had  seen  all  the  men  before  at  Wack's,  and 
Lowe  at  my  father's.  Lowe  gave  me  a  card. 
I  lost  it.  I  went  back  to  Wack's.  Went  from 
home  to  Oberlin  that  morning  to  get  John  to 
dig  potatoes.  Said  he  could  n't  go.  Went  with 
John  because  I  was  getting  well  paid  for  it. 
Knew  what  the  men  wanted  to  get  John  for. 
Was  to  have  $20  for  it.  Jennings  was  to  pay 
me.  Did  pay  me  $20.  The  bargain  was  made 
at  Wack's  on  Monday  morning.  It  was  spoken 
of  at  my  father's  house.  Got  John  to  ride  to 
another  negro's  who  promised  to  come  and  dig 
potatoes.  Then  I  told  John  he  might  as  well 
have  a  good  ride  afterwards.  Came  back  after 
they  had  got  John,  and  told  Jennings  they  had 
got  him.  So  he  paid  me  the  $20 ;  good  money. 
Father  knew  nothing  of  this  matter  till  after 
ward,  that  I  know  of.  Told  him  of  it  soon  af 
terward.  I  was  to  have  $20  more  if  I  got  big 
Frank.  Was  sorry  I  could  n't  get  him.  The 
card  had  their  address  on,  so  I  could  write  to 
them  if  I  had  any  occasion  to.  Have  had  no 
occasion  to  write.  Have  never  written.  Lost 
the  card. 

Adjourned  till  next  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

FIFTH  DAY.  —  9,  A.  M. —  SATURDAY. 

District- Attorney  rose  to  say  that  he  was  wil 
ling  Messrs.  Dickson,  Peck,  Fitch,  and  Plumb, 
of  the  witnesses  for  the  defence  should  remain 
in  the  Court  Room.  Defence  accepted  the 
courtesy. 

Henry  E.  Peck,  called.  Am  Professor  in 
Oberlin  College.  Reside  at  Oberlin.  Remem 
ber  the  day  of  the  alleged  Rescue.  Did  not  on 
the  afternoon  of  that  day  meet  defendant  at  or 
near  the  steps  of  Fitch's  bookstore,  either  alone 
or  with  Plumb  or  Fitch.  Heard  no  inquiry 
from  defendant  to  any  one,  as  to  whether  they 
had  got  John.  Heard  Bartholomew's  testi 
mony.  Understood  Bartholomew  to  say  that 
defendant  came  up  to  witness,  Fitch,  and  Plumb, 
and  asked  if  they  had  got  John ;  one  of  us  re 
plied  they  had ;  defendant  asked  what  had  best 
be  done ;  one  of  us  replied,  "go  and  get  them 
ready,  and  we  will  tell  you."  J\TO  such  or  simi 
lar  conversation  took  place  on  that  day  between 
such  parties.  Knew  negro  John  well.  He  was 
a  decidedly  black  man.  Five  feet  five  inches 
in  height ;  under,  if  any  thing ;  could  have  been 
but  a  fraction  over  that.  He  had  been  sick  just 


36 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


before  being  taken  away.  At  that  time  would 
not  weigh  over  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
pounds.  In  health  would  weigh  one  hundred 
and  sixty  pounds,  or  more.  Was  broad  shoul 
dered,  stoutly  built. 

Cross-examined.  Remember  to  have  known 
John  very  well  from  the  spring  of  1858  up  to 
the  time  he  was  taken  away.  May  have  known 
him  before.  Do  not  know  what  his  employ 
ment  was.  Did  not  know  him  to  be  employed. 
He  boarded  with  James  Armstrong,  who  lives 
next  to  my  farm,  so  that  I  saw  him,  with  rare 
exceptions  every  day  for  some  months.  Never 
saw  him  after  September  13th.  Know  nothing 
when  or  how  he  left  except  by  common  rumor. 

Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with 
defendant  about  John's  leaving  ? 

Counsel  inquired  if  Judge  BLISS  called  that 
cross-examination. 

Judge  BLISS  :  I  do.  [Argued  by  both  sides 
at  some  length.] 

Judge  BELDEN  claimed  that  no  principle  in 
law  is  better  settled  than  that  any  witness  may 
be  used  by  either  party,  cither  as  witness-in- 
chief  or  in-cross.  Judge  SPALDING  affirmed 
that,  in  the  cross-examination,  the  witness  must 
be  confined  to  such  topics  as  had  been  testified 
upon  by  him  in  direct  examination. 

The  COURT  ruled  that  Judge  SPALDING 
was  undoubtedly  correct.] 

Where  did  John  go  to  from  Wellington,  on 
September  13th? 

Objected  to. 

The  COURT  inquired  if  the  prosecution 
wished  to  ask  witness  such  a  question  after 
witness  had  stated  he  knew  nothing  of  him 
after  September  13th  ? 

DISTRICT-ATTORNEY.     Yes,  your  Honor. 

The  COURT.     Proceed,  sir. 

Witness  knew  nothing  about  him  on  or  after 
September  13th.  Saw  defendant  on  13th  Sep 
tember,  in  Oberlin,  in  a  room  over  Mr.  Ells's 
store.  Saw  him  at  no  other  time  or  place  on 
that  day. 

What  time  of  the  day  was  this  ? 

Objected  to,  as  incompetent  on  cross-exam 
ination. 

The  COURT  decided  that  it  was  incompetent, 
unless  to  prove  the  conversation  as  being  there, 
which  was  alleged  by  Bartholomew  to  be  in 
front  of  .Fitch's  store. 

Ralph  Plumb,  Samuel  Plumb,  J.  M.  Fitch 
were  present  in  the  room.  Other  persons  were 
in,  but  whether  at  that  moment  or  not,  I  can 
not  say.  The  windows  were  closed  and  cur 
tained.  About  3  o'clock,  or  later,  this  was. 
We  staid  together  about  an  hour.  Before 
going  in  there,  had  been  near  Fitch's  store. 
This  was  just  about  a  quarter  past  two.  No 
crowd  about  this  store.  There  was  a  crowd  in 
and  near  Watson's  store.  Almost  entirely 
there.  Samuel  Plumb,  Ralph  Plumb,  and  J. 
M.  Fitch  were  with  me.  No  others  near,  un 
less  a  customer  or  two  passing.  Am  positive 
I  did  not  see  defendant  there,  and  that  he  was 


not  there.  The  crowd  was  all  rushing  to  Wat 
son's,  as  the  rallying  point.  Was  somewhat 
excited,  but  perfectly  in  hand,  as  I  am  now. 
Can  recollect  perfectly  and  positively  what  I 
did,  for  I  am  extraordinarily  sensitive  about 
violations  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Did  not 
go  to  Wellington.  About  five  minutes  past 
two  o'clock  I  went  over  toward  Mr.  Carpen 
ter's  store,  and  found  Mr.  Samuel  Plumb.  We 
stopped  about  sixty  or  eighty  seconds,  and  Seth 
Bartholomew  came  up  at  my  back,  with  the 
evident  manner  of  an  eave-dropper.  I  then 
went  East,  and  met  Mr.  Fitch,  who,  coining 
up,  made  some  expression  of  indignation. 
Within  a  few  days  after  this,  I  heard  that  there 
were  United  States  officers  in  town,  ferreting 
out  information,  when  and  since  when  I  have 
carefully  retained  what  I  knew  of  the  circum 
stances.  I  am  only  testifying  of  what  occurred 
at  the  points  where  I  was  with  these  gentlemen, 
always  at  a  considerable  distance  from  the 
crowd.  I  was  led  by  a  great  singularity  in 
John's  appearance,  frequently  to  note  his 
height,  weight,  etc.  Nothing  but  the  singular 
ity  of  his  appearance  led  me  so  frequently  to 
note  him.  He  was  evidently  sick  most  of  the 
time,  and  apparently  sick  in  a  way  a  man- 
ought  not  to  be.  Should  have  noticed  any  one- 
else  who  had  a  similar  manner. 

Ralph  Plumb,  called.  Reside  in  Oberlin. 
Was  at  Oberlin  on  13th  September.  Heard 
Bartholomew's  testimony  in  this  case.  [Wit 
ness  repeated  that  part  of  Bartholomew's  testi 
mony  which  related  to  the  alleged  conversation 
between  defendant,  witness,  last  witness,  and. 
Fitch,  as  stated  by  last  witness.]  No  such  con 
versation  took  place.  Did  n't  see  defendant 
there.  Defendant  was  not  there.  Bartholomew 
was  not  there.  Never  saw  John  in  my  life, 
that  I  know  of.  Know  of  his  existence  on!y 
by  hearsay. 

Cross-examined.  Fitch,  Peck,  and  self  were 
on  Fitch's  store  steps.  Defendant  is  clerk  in 
this  store.  Think  no  other  person  was  near. 
Have  perfectly  distinct  recollection  of  persons 
present.  Am  positive  defendant  was  not  pres 
ent  Think  defendant  was  not  in  the  store. 
Think  I  should  have  seen  him  if  he  was,  for 
the  store  doors  are  glass,  and  should  have  seen 
him,  unless  he  were  far  down  in  the  store.  But 
very  few  people  were  in  sight.  Watson's  store 
is  in  another  street,  around  the  corner.  Saw 
Bartholomew  in  the  crowd.  Had  no  conver 
sation  with  him.  The  crowd  was  continuous 
from  Carpenter's  to  Watson's.  Passed  through 
the  crowd  on  the  way  to  my  office.  May  have 
said  a  word  or  two  to  some  one  in  passing. 
Did  not  stop  to  converse. 

James  M.  Fitch,  called.  Reside  in  Oberlin. 
Own  the  store  called  by  my  name.  Heard 
Bartholomew's  testimony.  Was  at  home  on 
September  13th.  Was  on  the  steps  at  the 
time  Bartholomew  speaks  of.  Defendant  was 
not  there.  He  was  not  at  the  store;  had 
[eft  some  time  before.  Did  not  see  Bartholo- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


mew  there.  No  such  conversation  as  Barthol 
omew  alleges  took  place  in  my  hearing.* 

Cross-examined.  A  few  words  may  have 
passed  on  the  steps.  Don't  remember  what, 
if  any.  Remember  passing  over  the  steps,  but 
do  not  remember  stopping  on  them.  William 
Bushncll,  another  of  my  clerks,  was  in  the  store. 
3Iy  son,  the  third  and  only  other  clerk,  was 
absent,  and  defendant  had  passed  out  of  the 
store  by  the  front  door  a  few  minutes  before, 
and  some  minutes  after  our  being  on  the  steps, 
he  came  back.  Do  not  know  where  he  went, 
or  for  what.  Defendant  was  not  in  the  store 
all  the  afternoon.  There  was  something  of  a 
crowd  about  the  streets.  Do  not  remember  to 
have  seen  Bartholomew.  Am  one  of  the  in 
dicted  for  aiding  and  abetting  the  rescue  of  this 
negro,  John.  Professor  Peck  is  also  one. 

Joseph  H.  Dickson,  sworn,  lleside  in  Wel 
lington.  Attorney-at-law  by  profession.  Was 
at  Wellington  13th  September  last.  .,  Should 
think  two  or  three  hundred  were  there  at  noon, 
attracted  by  the  heavy  fire  of  the  early  morn 
ing.  About  1  o'clock  we  were  trying  a  law 
suit  in  the  town  hall,  and  some  person  came  in 
and  said  a  negro  had  been  kidnapped.  Con 
stable  was  sent  to  say  that  the  Southerners 
wished  to  see  me.  Passed  through  the  public 
square,  which  may  contain  two  or  three  acres. 
The  lawsuit  was  before  Justice  Bennett  The 
same  crowd  was  there  as  in  the  morning.  This 
was  about  half  past  one  or  two  o'clock.  Saw 
only  one  Obcrlin  man,  Watson.  Went  up  to 
the  room  where  the  Southerners  were,  in  the 
attic.  Now  not  far  from  two  o'clock.  Some 
persons  in  the  halls  and  bar-room  seemed  ex 
cited.  At  the  door,  the  constable  gave  some 
message,  and  the  door  was  opened,  and  I  went 
in,  a  young  man,  stranger  to  me,  following  us. 
No  one  came  in  except  these  three.  Found 
three  men  and  the  negro  in  the  room.  No 
others.  Lowe  introduced  himself  and  his  offi 
cial  character.  I  asked  if  he  had  papers  for 
holding  the  negro.  Said  he  had.  Showed  me 
his  warrant,  —  no  other  papers.  No  one  else 
showed  other  papers.  Read  the  warrant,  and, 
being  asked,  said  I  saw  no  informality  except 
the  lack  of  a  seal.  Lowe  said  it  was  not  cus 
tomary  for  such  papers  to  have  'a  seal.  I  said 
I  was  not  conversant  with  such  papers.  I  then 
turned  to  one  of  the  other  men,  supposing  him 
to  be  the  owner,  and  asked  what  he  would  take 
ibr  the  negro.  He  said  fourteen  hundred  dol 
lars.  A  third  man,  with  red  whiskers,  said  he'd 
better  take  twelve  hundred  dollars  if  he  could 
get  it.  The  man  I  bargained  with  is  tall,  dark 
complexion.  [Witness  identified  Jennings  in 
the  audience  as  the  bargainer.]  Nothing  was 
said  about  the  authority  by  which  he  would  sell 
the  negro.  Nothing  said  .of  power  of  attorney. 
No  such  paper  shown  or  seen.  Lowe,  turning 
to  the  other  two,  said  that,  as  this  man  was  a 

*  Mr.  Bartholomew  has  since  been  indicted  by  the 
urand  Jury  of  Cuyahoga  county,  for  perjury. 


lawyer,  they  had  better  employ  him.  Lowe  in 
troduced  the  subject  of  the  Greene  County 
slave  case,  and  asked  me  if  I  was  aware  of  the 
decision  in  the  court  in  that  case.  This  young 
man  who  followed  me  in,  sat  down  by  my  side 
and  read  the  warrant  with  me.  Have  since  been 
told  his  name  was  Scrirngeour.  I  staid  in  the 
room  some  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes.  Remem 
ber  no  other  conversation  than  that  stated. 
When  I  came  down,  noticed  that  the  crowd  had 
increased.  Think  I  went  out  the  back  door. 
Found  something  of  a  crowd  about.  Made  no 
proclamation  or  address  to  the  crowd  whatever. 
Conversed  with  several  individuals,  remarking 
that  I  had  seen  the  warrant,  but  it  lacked  a 
a  seal.  Made  no  expression  of  opinion  as  to  its 
efficacy  or  value,  saying  that  I  was  not  much  con 
versant  with  such  papers.  Did  n't  see  Lowe  out  in 
the  crowd  at  all.  Did  n't  see  the  negro  or  those 
holding  him  in  custody  upon  the  balcony  at  all. 
Went  home  about  four  o'clock.  Did  not  return 
to  the  crowd  afterward.  Going  towards  it 
about  sunset,  heard  a  great  shout,  and  heard 
it  said  that  the  slave  was  carried  off.  Those  in 
the  crowd  who  spoke  with  me,  spoke  of  the 
negro  being  kidnapped,  and  asked  earnestly  if 
something  could  not  be  done  to  save  him. 
Stated  to  those  who  asked  that  I  had  seen  the 
paper,  but  could  not  tell  whether  it  was  suffi 
cient  authority  or  not.  Think  I  said  to  them 
that  U.  S.  Marshal  Lowe  held  the  negro.  Think 
I  talked  with  but  a  few  persons  in  the  crowd. 
Think  there  were  four  or  five  hundred  in  the 
crowd.  It  was  a  promiscuous  crowd.  Saw  no 
concerted  movement.  Can't  say  that  I  saw 
any  common  purpose  manifested  by  the  crowd. 
Think  three  hundred  people  at  least  were  at 
tracted  by  the  fire.  Think  most  that  came 
after  two  or  three  o'clock,  came  from  the  north. 
Saw  people  with  arms  first  after  coming  down. 
Think  in  all  I  did  not  see  more  than  twenty 
guns.  Observed  none  except  in  the  hands  of 
colored  men.  Understood  from  some  persons 
that  more  or  less  of  the  guns  were  not  loaded. 
No  guns  were  discharged  or  attempted  to  be 
discharged  in  my  presence,  or  to  my  knowledge. 
Know  defendant.  Did  not  see  him  there. 
Neither  of  the  magistrates  were  in  the  room 
with  myself  and  the  southern  gentlemen. 

Cross-examined.  Don't  know  how  the  negro 
went  off.  Was  in  sight  of  the  hotel  and  heard  the 
shout,  and  saw  a  general  movement  of  the 
crowd.  The  warrant  had  neither  seal  nor  scroll. 
The  only  impression  I  got  from  the  warrant, 
and  the  party,  was  that  Jennings  was  the  negro's 
owner.  No  paper  was  shown  me  except  the 
warrant  by  Lowe.  I  told  them  they  could  n't 
employ  me.  Think  none  came  into  the 
room  while  we  were  there.  Remember  no 
one  coming  in.  Was  not  there  when  Esqrs. 
Bennett  and  Howk,  or  Mr.  Wheeler  were 
there.  Don't  remember  more  than  three  men 
with  the  negro.  Remember  nothing  about 
Davis.  Remember  Lowe,  a  tall,  dark-faced 
man,  and  a  sandy-whiskered  man. 


38 


HISTORY  OF   THE 


While  talking  with  the  individuals  below,  at 
one  time  there  were  four  or  five  persons  about 
me.  Said  to  Mr.  Wads  worth,  I  thought  the 
crowd  had  better  abstain  from  interference. 
They  made  no  statement  of  the  purpose  for 
which  they  wished  to  employ  me.  This  talk 
was  cut  short  by  my  saying  that  they  could  not 
employ  me.  Think  it  was  after  I  read  the 
warrant  that  the  offer  to  employ  me  was  made. 
Nothing  was  said  about  my  endeavoring  to 
quiet  or  disperse  the  crowd.  No  request  of  that 
sort  was  made.  No  claim  of  authority  was 
made  except  by  showing  the  warrant. 

James  L.  Patton,  called.  Resided  in  Ober- 
lin  in  September,  1858.  Belong,  as  a  student, 
to  the  college  there.  Remember  some  of  the 
occurrences  of  the  13th  of  that  month.  Saw 
a  crowd  that  afternoon.  My  attention  was 
first  called  to  it  between  1  and  2  o'clock.  Can 
fix  the  time  within  half  an  hour.  Had  just 
seated  myself  to  study  after  dinner.  Some  one 
came  into  the  hall  and  said  that  some  one  had 
been  carried  off  by  slave-catchers,  as  they  were 
called,  1  think.  Took  my  hat  and  went  to  the 
crowd  near  Watson's  store.  Heard  this  rumor 
confirmed  there.  Did  not  stay  at  all,  but  left 
and  went  to  Whitney's  livery  stable.  Before 
going  there  I  learned  in  the  crowd  some  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  man  had  been 
taken.  In  substance,  that  a  man  had  been 
decoyed  out  of  town  and  snatched  up  and  taken 
away  by  parties  lying  in  wait.  The  rumor  had 
been  about  the  town  for  several  days  that  parties 
were  lying  in  wait  to  make  such  an  abduction. 
Don't  know  what  brought  the  crowd  together. 
I  joined  the  crowd  because  I  heard  that  the 
man  had  been  carried  off.  Know  others  who 
joined  the  crowd  for  the  same  reason.  I  went 
to  Wellington  because  I  had  information  that 
the  man  had  been  caught  up  and  carried  in 
that  direction.  Wm.  D.  Scrimgeour  and  John 
G.  W.  Cowles  went  with  me.  A  number  were 
ahead  of  me ;  don't  know  how  many.  Drove 
to  Wellington  in  about  an  hour.  Might  have 
been  eighty  or  one  hundred  about  the  hotel. 
Did  n't  notice  how  many  were  about  the  fire  — 
saw  a  crowd  there.  Passed  'round  through  the 
crowd  half  an  hour  or  so,  and  then  went  into 
the  room  in  the  garret.  Can't  tell  what  time 
I  got  into  that  room,  somewhere  about  4  o'clock. 
Went  to  the  back  door  which  was  guarded. 
Told  a  man,  I  took  to  be  the  landlord,  that  I 
wanted  to  see  the  marshal.  He  refused.  Then 
said  I  wanted  to  see  Scrimgeour ;  and  he  took 
me  to  the  room  in  the  garret.  He  knocked  at 
the  door,  and  Lowe  came  out.  Landlord  said 
I  wanted  to  see  Scrimgeour.  Lowe  took  me  by 
the  arm  and  said  he  wanted  to  talk  with  me. 
Led  me  to  a  little  room  near  by,  and  told  me 
he  had  sent  to  Cleveland  by  telegraph  for  aid, 
which  would  come  on  the  4  o'clock  train,  and 
that  his  papers  were  all  right  He  then 
showed  me  his  warrant,  which  I  looked  over 
somewhat,  but  did  not  read  carefully.  He 
showed  me  no  other  papers.  He  then  asked 


me  if  I  would  go  down  and  tell  the  crowd  that 
he  was  legally  authorized,  and  that  he  must  re 
turn  his  warrant  at  Columbus,  and  make  for 
him  a  proposition  to  the  crowd  to  choose  a  com 
mittee,  which  should  go  with  him  to  Columbus 
and  see  that  the  boy  had  a  fair  trial.  I  then 
went  down  to  the  crowd,  and  got  up  on  the 
steps  of  the  hotel  and  stated  to  the  crowd  that 
I  had  seen  the  warrant,  and  stated  as  nearly  as 
I  could  the  proposition  of  the  marshal,  adding 
that,  as  far  as  I  could  see,  the  warrant  was 
right,  and  if  they  wished  to  proceed  according 
to  law,  they  would  probably  have  to  send  to 
Elyria  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Was  in  the 
room  with  the  marshal  perhaps  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes.  He  said  nothing  to  me  of  the  manner  of 
the  arrest,  or  of  any  authority  for  the  arrest,  ex 
cept  the  warrant.  He  said  nothing  about  a  power 
of  attorney.  Neither  heard  any  thing  about,  nor 
saw  any  thing  of,  a  power  of  attorney  till  1  heard 
of  it  in  this  Court  Room.  Received  no  instruc 
tions  to  speak  of  a  power  of  attorney  to  the 
crowd  below.  Saw  others  of  Lowe's  party 
while  up  stairs,  but  had  no  conversation  with 
them. 

Court  adjourned  at  noon  to  Monday  morning 
at  10  o'clock. 

SIXTH  DAY.  — 10,  A.  M.  —  MONDAY. 

James  L.  Patton,  examination-in-chief  contin 
ued.  [Before  proceeding  with  the  testimony, 
Mr.  RIDDLE  wished  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Court  to  a  fact  which  had  just  come  to  his 
knowledge,  namely,  that  one  of  the  Jurors,  Mr. 
Chas.  N.  Allen,  was  an  officer  of  the  Court — a 
deputy  marshal.  He  did  not  wish  to  intimate 
any  unfairness,  but  desired  the  Court  to  notice 
the  fact.  The  Court  did  not  see  fit  to  take  any 
action  in  regard  to  the  matter.] 

The  examination  therefore  proceeded. 

The  warrant  was  spoken  of  in  my  inter 
view  with  the  marshal  and  his  party,  but  no 
other  paper.  Saw  no  other.  Lowe  offered  to 
go  out  and  read  his  warrant  to  the  crowd,  if  I 
would  go  along  and  protect  him.  He  was 
afraid  of  violence  if  unprotected.  I  consented 
to  go.  We  went  out  the  back  door,  along  the 
south  side  of  the  house  into  the  square,  thence 
a  few  rods  south  to  some  steps.  Lowe  and  I 
mounted,  he  handed  me  the  warrant,  and  I 
read  it.  We  then  proposed  to  the  crowd  that 
as  they  had  heard  his  papers,  they  let  him  go 
about  his  business.  Some  one  answered  that 
the  warrant  made  no  difference,  the  crowd 
would  have  the  boy  any  way.  Just  then,  I 
heard  a  rush,  and  looking  toward  the  hotel, 
saw  the  crowd  pouring  in  at  the  front  door. 
Lowe  caught  me  by  the  arm,  and  we  with  a 
third  gentleman  returned  to  the  room  in  the 
attic.  Passed  up  the  first  flight  of  stairs  with 
out  difficulty,  but  found  something  of  a  crowd 
on  the  second  flight.  We  crowded  through 
into  the  room.  This  was  some  ten  minutes  be 
fore  the  boy  was  taken  out.  No  warrant  was 
shown  to  me,  or  in  my  presence,  except  when 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


39 


Lowe  and  I  were  alone  in  the  adjoining  room. 
I  asked  Jennings  if  the  boy  belonged  to  him,  and 
he  said  he  did.  No  other  conversation  or  re 
mark  about  the  ownership  of  the  boy  was 
made  in  my  hearing.  Think  no  one  beside 
Mandeville,  and  the  parties  who  had  the  boy  in 
custody,  were  present  when  I  asked  about  the 
ownership  of  the  boy.  I  saw  nothing  of  de 
fendant  on  this  day,  either  at  Oberlin,  or  at 
Wellington,  or  on  the  road  between.  (TTI  ar 
riving  at  Wellington,  heard  that  the  boy  had 
been  out  on  the  balcony.  Did  not  see  or  hear 
of  his  being  out  there  after  my  arrival.  Heard 
at  Wellington  that  a  man  had  been  kidnapped 
and  was  aoout  to  be  taken  away.  Heard  that 
he  was  a  fugitive  at  Wellington;  do  not  re 
member  hearing  him  spoken  of  at  Oberlin  as 
a  fugitive.  Heard  it  said,  not  by  the  crowd, 
but  by  the  marshal,  that  a  telegram  had  been 
sent  to  Cleveland  for  assistance  which  would 
come  by  the  4  o'clock  train.  I  did  not  make 
this  fact  known  to  the  crowd ;  may  have  heard 
it  spoken  of  in  the  crowd,  but  do  not  so  remem 
ber.  Wras,  perhaps,  in  the  room  with  Lowe  in 
first  interview  ten  minutes.  Remember  the 
warrant  declared  the  slave  to  be  the  property 
of  John  G.  Bacon.  Asked  Jennings  if  he  was 
the  owner,  because  I  had  not  learned  his 
name,  and  he  affirming  himself  to  be  the 
owner,  I  at  once  took  him  to  be  John  G. 
Bacon. 

Cross-examination.  The  crowd  responded  to 
the  reading  of  the  warrant  by  saying  that  they 
cared  nothing  for  papers ;  they  would  have  the 
boy  anyhow;  Columbus  was  too  far  south  to 
go.  During  the  afternoon  heard  threats  that 
the  roof  should  be  torn  off  the  house  but  that 
the  boy  should  be  rescued.  Heard  no  such 
threats  in  response  to  the  reading  of  the  war 
rant.  Some  persons  passed  in  and  out  during 
my  first  and  second  visits  to  the  room ;  there 
were  not  many  of  these;  cannot  say  how 
many.  Think  most  of  them  belonged  to  the 
company  I  first  found  there.  Saw  Wheeler 
during  the  afternoon ;  can't  tell  where ;  can't 
say  he  was  in  the  house;  was  not  present 
vrhen  he  had  an  interview  with  those  in  the 
room.  Do  not  remember  to  have  seen  Esq. 
Howk  or  Esq.  Bennett  in  the  room.  Know 
witness  Wheeler  only  by  face ;  know  nothing 
of  his  brothers.  Was  in  the  room  when  negro 
was  taken  out  Did  not  see  him  put  into  the 

fcuggy- 

Examination  in  chief  resumed.  Heard  no 
threats  after  the  warrant  was  read.  Saw  noth 
ing  like  concerted  action  in  the  crowd.  Knew 
of  no  concert  in  counsel  among  any  actin^  as 
leaders. 

Cross-examination  resumed.  The  response 
to  the  reading  of  the  warrant  was  made  by  a 
single  gentleman,  who  accompanied  the  marshal 
as  his  friend,  and  declared  himself  a  stranger 
in  the  place.  The  expression  was,  "  The  crowd 
care  nothing  for  papers ;  they  will  have  the  m<*- 
ger  anyhow." 


William  Howk,  sworn.  Resides  in  the  town 
of  Wellington,  three  miles  north  of  the  village. 
Some  time  in  the  forenoon  of  the  day  of  the 
Rescue,  some  one,  passing  my  house,  said,  Wel 
lington  was  burning  up ;  and,  although  unwell, 
I  immediately  set  out  for  the  scene  of  the  fire. 
Should  think  at  noon  there  was  a  crowd  of  five 
hundred  or  more.  Think  some  were  then 
about  going  home.  There  was  a  case  of  as 
sault  and  battery  being  tried  there  that  day,  to 
which  I  went;  I  think  the  case  was  appointed 
for  2  o'clock.  Esquire  Bennett  asked  me  to 
sit  with  him  (am  Justice  of  the  Peace),  which  I 
did.  We  got  just  through  the  case,  when  a  man 
came  in  and  said  a  man  had  been  kidnapped, 
and  was  now  in  custody  near  by.  Think  he 
made  oath  to  the  fact;  the  affidavit  was  read  aloud 
to  those  in  the  Town-House  —  one  hundred  or 
so — and  a  warrant  was  issued.  Esquire  Ben 
nett  then  asked  me,  if  there  should  be  a  trial,  to 
sit  with  him,  to  which  I  assented.  Those  in  the 
Town-House  then  went  out.  Do  not  know  who 
came  in  and  made  the  affidavit.  This  might  now 
have  been  4  o'clock.  Esquire  Bennett  and 
myself  then  went  toward  the  hotel.  The 
Town-House  stands  south  of  the  hotel  ten  or 
twelve  rods,  on  the  same  side  of  the  public 
square.  Should  think  the  crowd  was  now  not 
less  than  at  noon,  and  I  noticed  some  individu 
als  I  had  not  before  seen.  Saw  some  guns,  in 
all,  perhaps  twenty.  Saw  none  except  in  the 
hands  of  colored  men,  except  that  I  saw  Mr. 
\Vheeler  throw  a  gun.  Saw  no  leader  or  lead 
ers.  No  concerted  action.  Heard  a  good 
many  speak  of  the  man  in  the  attic  as  having 
been  kidnapped;  it  was  farther  said  that  no 
papers  had  been  used  in  the  arrest  of  the  man. 
These  remarks  were  made  by  persons  who 
were  strangers  to  myself.  Some  whom  I  knew, 
standing  upon  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd,  said 
they  wondered  if  it  was  a  case  of  kidnapping, 
adding  that,  to  all  appearances,  it  was.  Did 
not  see  the  negro  on  the  balcony.  Saw  a  man 
on  the  steps  reading  a  paper.  Could  not  hear 
what  was  read.  I  went  into  the  building. 
Wm.  Sciples  came  to  me  and  said  the  marshal 
wanted  to  see  me.  This  was  the  first  I  knew 
whether  there  was  a  marshal,  or  in  what  sjiape 
the  case  was.  I  went  up  and  found  Mande 
ville  and  David  L.  Wadsworth  in  the  room. 
This  was  quite  late,  and  dusky.  A  man  came 
up  to  me,  and  speaking  quite  low,  said  he  want 
ed  to  see  me.  He  led  the  way  out  of  the  room 
to  the  head  of  the  stairs,  and  there  handed  me 
a  paper ;  I  took  it,  and  looking  at  it,  told  him  I 
could  not  read  it  without  glasses,  and  handed 
it  back  to  him.  He  said  nothing  till  then,  but 
then  said,  "  If  half  a  dozen  or  so  of  your  men 
will  go  with  me  to  Columbus,  and  this  thing 
is  n't  a  straightforward  thing,  I  '11  let  the  boy 
come  back."  I  told  him  I  wanted  nothing-  of 
the  boy.  Nothing  was  said  by  either  of  us 
concerning  his  name  or  office,  or  the  charac 
ter  of  the  paper  in  any  way.  Nothing  was 
said  of  another  paper.  The  first  I  ever  heard 


40 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


of  a  power  of  attorney,  was  in  this  Court  House. 
Saw  nothing  that  was  on  the  paper.  Thought 
I  made  out  the  word  "  Columbus,"  in  large  type. 
Could  not  tell  whether  the  paper  was  written 
or  printed.  As  I  was  passing  up  I  heard  some 
one  say  there  was  no  seal  on  their  papers,  so 
I  looked  especially  for  that,  and  found  nothing 
like  a  seal.  Was  not  with  this  man  more  than 
a  minute  and  a  half,  or  so.  No  other  conversa 
tion  passed,  except  that  I  said  to  him,  as  I  start 
ed  to  go  down,  that  I  thought  the  crowd  did 
not  know  there  was  any  marshal.  The  name 
of  the  gentleman  who  took  me  out  was  not 
mentioned  in  my  hearing,  or  his  official  charac 
ter.  Nothing  was  said  about  any  other  person 
having  any  thing  to  do  with  the  custody  or  own 
ership  of  the  boy,  except  the  gentleman  with 
whom  I  spoke. 

Cross-examined.  Heard  no  statement  that 
there  were  papers  until,  as  I  was  passing  up, 
just  before  entering  the  room,  some  one  said 
the  papers  were  good  for  nothing,  having  no 
seal.  Heard  nothing  of  a  marshal,  till  Sciplcs 
came  to  say  to  me  that  the  marshal  wanted  to 
see  me.  Don't  know  who  it  was  came  to  get  the 
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  kidnappers.  Kept 
mainly  on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd.  Heard 
something  about  a  quarrel,  a  colored  man  hav 
ing  snapped  a  gun  at  a  white  man,  or  some  such 
matter  ;  don't  know  what  the  quarrel  was. 
Sciples,  in  presenting  me  to  the  gentleman  in 
the  room,  barely  mentioned  my  name,  saying 
nothing  else.  Did  not  know,  therefore,  thjs 
man  who  took  me  aside,  but  supposed  him  to  be 
the  marshal,  and  his  paper  to  be  a  warrant. 
But  this  was  all  supposition. 

By  what  sort  of  a  claim  did  you  understand 
him  to  hold  the  negro  ? 

[Counsel  for  defence  submitted  that  the  wit 
ness's  understanding  was  not  competent  evi 
dence. 

The  Court  ruled  that  it  was.'] 

I  understood  it,  or  supposed  it  to  be  a  legal 
claim.  Asked  Esq.  Bennett  if  he  had  read 
the  papers,  referring  to  the  one  paper  shown 
inc.  He  said  he  had,  and  guessed  they  were 
all  right.  Mentioned  to  some  persons  that  I 
had  seen  a  paper,  but  took  no  pains  to  spread 
this  information  in  the  crowd,  having  so  bad  a 
cold  as  to  be  unable  to  speak  loud  at  all.  Said 
nothing  to  the  crowd. 

Direct  resumed.  In  speaking  with  Esquire 
Bennett  about  the  paper,  I  think  I  said,  "  the 
marshal's  paper,"  having  reference  only  to  the 
warrant.  Bennett  said  nothing  to  me  of  any 
other  paper.  Do  not  know  that  the  crowd,  as 
a  whole,  knew  of  any  paper.  The  general  cry 
of  the  crowd  was  that  it  was  out  and  out  kid 
napping,  there  being  no  papers  at  all. 

Lysander  S.  Butler,  called.  Reside  at  Ober- 
lin ;  was  at  Wellington  on  the  day  of  the  Res 
cue.  Was  not  in  the  room  where  John  had 
been,  while  John  was  there.  Was  next  to 
Lowe  and  Patton  during  the  reading  of  the 
warrant  There  was  nothing  said,  in  my  hear 


ing,  of  any  other  paper.  I  looked  over  Pat- 
ton's  shoulder  while  he  read.  The  paper  pur 
ported  to  be  a  warrant  issued  and  signed  by  a 
U.  S.  Commissioner.  There  was  no  seal  upon 
it.  Was  a  law  student  at  that  time,  and  have 
been  since.  On  this  account  examined  the 
paper  with  special  interest.  Heard  nothing 
said  by  any  one  at  any  time  about  the  existence 
of  a\Mr  other  paper.  Particularly  asked  some 
persons  passing  m  and  out  of  the  room  if  they 
knew  of  any  other  papers,  and  was  answered 
in  the  negative.  lizard  only  one  opinion  in 
the  crowd,  and  that  was  that  the  arrest  was  ut 
terly  illegal  —  absolute  kidnapping.  Knew 
John  well.  He  was  not  to  exceed  five  feet  five 
inches,  at  the  utmost.  This  is  my  own  height, 
and  I  feel  sure  he  was  no  higher,  and  probably 
not  so  high  us  myself.  Am  confident  of  this. 
Know  Seth  W.  Bartholomew.  Have  known 
him  for  ten  years  intimately.  His  reputation 
for  truth  and  veracity  is  not  as  good  as  that  of 
men  in  general.  If  he  had  any  prejudices  or 
personal  interests  in  a  suit,  I  should  very  much 
dislike  to  believe  him  under  oath. 
Recess  till  2  o'clock. 

SIXTH  DAY.  —  2,  r.  M. 

Lysander  S.  Butler,  cross-examined.  Have 
been  reading  law  with  the  firm  of  Plumb  £ 
Plumb  for  a  year  or  two  past.  First  knew 
John  something  more  than  a  year  ago. 

Have  you  ever  heard  that  John  was  a  fugi 
tive  ? 

Objected  to. 

Objection  sustained. 

For  what  purpose  did  you  go  to  Wellington  ? 

Objected  to  as  improper  on  cross-examina 
tion,  no  such  topic  having  been  introduced  oil 
the  examination-in-chief. 

Objection  overruled. 

I  heard  that  a  man  had  been  kidnapped,  and 
taken  toward  Wellington.  By  kidnapping,  I 
mean  a  seizure  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States.  All  that  I  heard  was  the  sim 
ple  statement  that  a  man  had  been  kidnapped. 

When  did  you  first  hear  that  day  that  John 
was  a  fugitive  ? 

Objected  to  as  travelling  beyond  the  limits 
of  cross-examination. 

The  Prosecution  stated  that  it  intended  to 
use  this  witness  to  show  the  knowledge  and 
opinion  of  the  crowd. 

Argued. 

Objection  overruled.     Exception  taken. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  you  first  learned  or 
was  informed  that  John  was  a  fugitive  slave  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  cannot  remember  at 
what  time,  and  under  what  circumstances  I 
first  heard  this.  It  is  my  impression,  that  it 
was  not  generally  understood  at  Oberlin,  that 
John  was  a  fugitive  slave.  I  went  to  Welling 
ton  in  the  regular  stage  plying  between  Ober- 
lin  and  Wellington.  Think  there  was  not  more 
than  one  person  beside  myself,  and  the  usual 
passengers  on  board. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


41 


When  were  you  in  the  room  with  the  negro 
John? 

I  was  not  in  the  room. 

But  you  testified  on  the  examination-in-chief 
that  you  were  in  that  room. 

No,  sir,  I  must  have  been  misunderstood. 

[The  learned  associate  of  the  District- Attor 
ney  gave  the  witness  such  a  "  talking  to  "  as 
brought  the  counsel  for  the  defence  to  their 
feet  to  ask  if  witnesses  had  any  rights  in  this 
court.  In  making  this  inquiry,  they  were  so 
seriously  interrupted,  that  the  Court  was  obliged 
to  command  silence.  This  was  a  lamentable 
departure  from  the  dignity  and  courtesy  which 
had  heretofore  characterized  the  bearing  of  the 
prosecution.  The  Court  promptly  enforced 
order.] 

I  said  to  some  individuals  that  I  thought  the 
warrant  was  good  for  nothing.  Said  so,  be 
cause  I  supposed  a  seal  to  the  warrant  was  nec- 
erssary. 

Did  you  not  say  to  the  crowd  that  you 
thought  the  papers  were  all  right,  and  the 
only  legal  relief  was  by  a  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus  f 

Objected  to  as  new  matter. 

Argued. 

Court  first  sustained,  and  then  overruled  the 
objection. 

I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  making  any 
such  remark  as  my  own  opinion,  but  do  remem 
ber  quoting  a  remark  like  the  one  incorporated 
in  the  question.  I  quoted  it  to  some  one  sitting 
iii  a  buggy  near  the  buggy  in  which  I  was  then 
sitting.  Am  positive  John  was  not  over  five 
feet  five  inches.  Think  he  was  about  five  feet 
four  inches.  Have  had  no  conversation  with 
any  individuals  concerning  John's  height  since 
this  case  commenced,  farther  than  barely  re 
marking  on  reading  the  testimony  of  witnesses 
who  thought  him  five  feet  eight  or  ten,  that 
they  had  set  him  up  pretty  well. 

J.  J.  Cox,  sworn,  Reside  in  Oberlin.  Have 
resided  there  twenty  years.  Remember  the 
occurrences  of  Sept.  13th.  Was  not  at  Wel 
lington  on  that  day.  Knew  John  well.  Am 
builder  by  occupation.  John's  height  was  up 
to  my  ear,  five  feet  four  or  five  inches.  Have 
worked  and  scuffled  with  him  an  hundred  times 
or  more.  Am  pretty  sure  he  would  not  in 
health  weigh  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty 
pounds.  Know  Seth  W.  Bartholomew.  Have 
Known  lam  from  his  cradle.  Lived  many  years 
in  the  house  with  him.  His  reputation  for 
truth  and  veracity  from  his  boyhood  up,  among 
the  large  majority  of  the  people  of  Oberlin, 
has  been  bad. 

Cross-examined.  If  in  a  suit  he  had  any 
prejudices  or  interests  at  stake,  I  should  not 
believe  him  under  oath.  His  reputation  has 
always  been  bad.  Could  hardly  find  a  man 
who  would  not  agree  that  he  was  notoriously 
untruthful.  John  was  very  black,  so  black  he 
shone. 

Philo   Weed,  sworn.       Reside    in  Oberlin ; 

6 


have  resided  there  fifteen  or  sixteen  years. 
Knew  John  by  sight.  Knew  him  pretty  well. 
He  was  a  black,  a  very  black  negro.  About 
five  feet  seven  or  eight  inches  high.  Might 
weigh  130  or  140.  Rather  short  and  stout 
built.  Know  Seth  W.  Bartholomew.  Have 
the  means  of  knowing  his  general  reputation 
for  truth  and  veracity.  It  is  not  as  good  as 
that  of  men  in  general.  Should  not  want  to 
believe  him  under  oath. 

Cross-examination.  Have  known  Bartholo 
mew  ever  since  I  have  been  a  resident  there. 
His  reputation  has  always  been  bad.  Have 
heard  the  largest  part  oV  the  inhabitants  of 
Oberlin  speak  distrustingly  of  him.  Among 
them  Elliott,  Pelton,  Lowe,  Beecher,  Cox,  and 
Brokaw.  Some  nine  or  ten  years  ago  he  was 
indicted  for  stealing  money.  He  has  been  an 
apprentice  of  mine.  These  men  named  have 
spoken  of  him  to  me  repeatedly  as  a  thief  and 
a  liar.  Did  you  not  know  that  he  was  a  can 
didate  for  constable  at  the  late  village  election 
in  Oberlin  ? 

No,  sir ;  never  heard  of  it. *  But  did  hear 
that  he  got  tico  votes  for  that  office.  [Laughter.] 
He  stole  ten  dollars  in  money,  and  was  tried 
before  a  Justice. 

Brewster  Pelton,  sworn.  Know  Seth  W. 
Bartholomew.  Know  his  general  reputation. 
That  it  is  not  as  good  for  truth  and  veracity  as 
that  of  men  in  general.  Have  known  his  repu 
tation  for  truth  and  veracity  to  be  thus  bad 
from  1850  to  the  present  time. 

David  Brokaw,  sworn.  Have  resided  in 
Oberlin  seventeen  years.  Have  been  Mayor 
of  the  village.  Known  Bartholomew  during 
these  seventeen  years.  Would  not  believe 
him  under  oath,  if  he  were  interested  or  preju 
diced.  Do  not  know  the  boy  John. 

dark  Elliott,  sworn.  Do  not  know  John. 
Have  known  Bartholomew  thirteen  years. 
Would  not  believe  him  under  oath,  if  likely  to 
be  interested  or  prejudiced. 

A.  N.  Beecher,  sworn.  Resided  in  Oberlin 
twelve  years.  Am  Mayor  of  the  village.  Know 
Bartholomew.  It  would  depend  entirely  on 
circumstances  whether  I  should  believe  him 
under  oath. 

Dr.  PL  A.  Bunce,  sworn.  Resided  in  Oberlin 
five  years.  Known  Bartholomew  five  years. 
His  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  not  as 
good  as  that  of  men  in  general. 

Dr.  H.  Johnson,  sworn.  Am  a  physician. 
Have  resided  in  Oberlin  thirteen  and  a  half 
years.  Remember  the  incidents  of  September 
13th  last.  Knew  nothing  of  the  crowd  until 
after  the  return  from  Wellington.  About  3  in 
the  afternoon  was  going  in  the  outskirts  of  the 
village  to  visit  a  patient,  when  a  man  met  me 
going  toward  the  centre  of  the  village,  and  said 
that  a  negro  had  just  been  kidnapped. 

What  was  the  state  of  the  public  mind  at 
this  time  with  reference  to  the  apprehended 
arrest  or  seizure  of  negroes  ? 

Objected  to  as  irrelevant. 


42 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


Objection  sustained.  [The  Court  had  pre 
viously  repeatedly  ruled  in  precisely  this  char 
acter  of  testimony.] 

0.  S.  B.  Wall  affirmed.  [Though  a  colored 
man,  Judge  WILL  SON,  forgetful  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  decided  him  to  be  a  perfectly 
competent  witness.] 

Am  resident  of  Oberlin.  Have  been  since 
'53.  Native  of  North  Carolina.  My  father 
was  a  very  extensive  slaveholder.  Knew  the 
colors  by  which  people  of  color  were  classified. 
There  were  black,  blacker,  blackest.  [Laugh 
ter.]  Then  copper  color,  which  is  about  the 
color  of  hemlock  tanned  sole  leather.  [Laugh 
ter.]  Then  there  are  dark,  lighter,  and  light 
mulatto.  Knew  John  very  well.  He  was  a 
decidedly  black  negro.  Not  over  five  feet  and 
a  half,  and  probably  not  over  five  feet  four  or 
five  inches.  His  weight  on  the  13th  of  Septem 
ber  last  could  not  have  been  over  125  or  130. 

Defence  rested. 

Defence  asked  leave  to  make  three  argu 
ments.  The  Qourt  refused. 

At  the  request  of  the  prosecution,  the  Court 
adjourned  till  the  next  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

SEVENTH  DAY. —  9,  A.  M. 

The  prosecution  resumed  the  examination 
of  witnesses.  Witnesses  sworn. 

Norris"  A.  Wood,  recalled.  Have  lived  in 
Oberlin  three  or  four  years.  Know  Seth  W. 
Bartholomew  somewhat.  Have  had  a  good 
deal  of  deal  with  him  since  I  have  been  there. 
Have  taken  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity 
to  be  good.  Would  believe  him  under  oath. 
Was  at  Wellington.  Know  L.  S.  Butler.  Saw 
him  at  Wellington.  Heard  him  say  something 
about  the  papers.  He  came  to  me  and  I  asked 
him  what  they  was  a  going  to  do,  and  he  said 
they  could  n't  do  any  thing  there.  He  said  the 
papers  was  right ;  they'd  got  to  go  to  Elyria 
and  get  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  take  John 
away  from  them.  He  wanted  to  get  a  horse 
and  buggy  of  me,  and  I  told  him  I  had  n't  got 
any  there.  I  come  with  Mr.  Marks.  He  turned 
right  about  and  went  to  Mr.  Marks,  who  was 
standing  about  ten  foot  from  me.  This  was 
about  half  an  hour  or  more  before  the  Rescue. 

Cross-examined.  I  put  up  a  ladder  to  go  up 
by  arid  see  the  fun.  Expected  there  would  be 
shooting  up  there,  and  wanted  to  see  it.  This 
was  but  a  very  few  minutes  before  John  was 
taken  out.  Should  not  think  it  was  more  than 
five  minutes.  This  was  about  three  quarters  of 
an  hour  after  my  conversation  with  Butler. 
Will  swear  positively  to  this. 

M.  P.  Gaston,  called.  Resided  in  Oberlin 
twelve  years.  Have  known  Seth  W.  Barthol 
omew  ever  since  I  moved  into  the  place.  Have 
lived  right  across  the  road  from  his  father's  for 
four  or  five  years. 

Have  you  the  means  of  knowing  what  his 
reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  ? 

Never  heard  aught  against  him. 


Such  an  answer  objected  to. 

Question  repeated. 

Same  answer. 

The  COURT  asked  the  witness  if  he  under 
stood  the  English  language. 

Question  repeated. 

I  have.  Would  believe  him  under  oath  as 
soon  as  men  in  general. 

W.  B.  Worden,  recalled.  Have  lived  in 
Oberlin  five  or  six  years.  Know  Seth  W. 
Bartholomew.  Have  no  reason  to  distrust  his 
word  under  oath. 

E.  A.  Munson,  called.  Am  son  of  the  pres 
ent  Postmaster  at  Oberlin.  Reside  in  Cleve^- 
land.  Have  done  so  for  the  past  five  years* 
Previous  to  that,  resided  seven  years  in  Ober 
lin.  Knew  Bartholomew  intimately,  as  a 
schoolmate.  As  a  boy,  he  was  rather  wild,  but 
since  coming  to  years  of  discretion,  have  under 
stood  his  reputation  to  be  as  good  as  that  of 
men  in  general.  Would  as  soon  believe  him 
under  oath  as  men  in  general.  Knew  that 
when  he  was  thirteen  or  fourteen  years  old  he 
was  accused  of  stealing  some  change  and 
something  else,  don't  remember  distinctly  what 
it  was.  Never  heard  of  his  being  under  arrest 
Heard  that  he  paid  back  the  money,  and  so 
the  matter  was  settled. 

Cross-examined.  He  was  at  work  about  Mr. 
Pelton's  store,  where  I  was  employed  at  this 
time.  This  was  about  twelve  years  ago,  after 
we  had  done  going  to  school  together.  [Wit 
ness  was  evidently  confused  in  dates,  since  it  was 
but  twelve  years  since  he  first  came  to  Oberlin.l 

E.  P.  Dodge,  sworn.  Live  in  this  city.  Leu 
Oberlin  two  years  ago.  Was  brought  up  there- 
Know  Bartholomew.  We  grew  up  together 
as  playmates.  Should  think  his  reputation  for 
truth  and  veracity  was  as  good  as  that  of  men 
in  general.  Would  believe  him  under  oath  as 
readily  as  men  in  general. 

Charles  T.  Mark's,  recalled.  Lived  in  Ober 
lin  about  two  years.  Keep  meat  market  there. 
Known  Bartholomew  for  two  years  well.  Never 
heard  but  that  his  reputation  for  truth  and 
veracity  was  as  good  as  that  of  men  in  general. 
Would  believe  him  under  oath  as  readily  as 
men  in  general. 

Richard  P.  Mitchell,  recalled.  Something 
was  said  between  Dickson  and  myself  about  the 
seal  to  the  poicer  of  attorney.  Do  not  know 
whether  he  saw  the  warrant  or  not.  The 
power  of  attorney  was  shown  him,  and  ho 
remarke'd  that  it  had  no  seal,  but  he  was  not 
well  enough  acquainted  with  such  papers 
[laughter]  to  know  whether  a  seal  was  neces 
sary",  and  I  said  that  our  laws  did  not  require 
a  seal.  Jennings  was  standing  close  by. 

Anderson  Jennings,  recalled.  [This  witness 
corroborated  the  statements  of  the  last.] 

Another  list  of  witnesses  sworn. 

B.  L.  Pierce,  called.  Lived  in  Oberlin  last 
twenty  years.  Known  Bartholomew  from  his 
boyhood.  Have  not  known  him  intimately, 
personally.  Have  known  him  as  a  citizen  of 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


43 


the  place.  Have  not  the  means  of  knowing  his 
reputation  so  well  as  some.  Could  not  say 
that  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  was 
as  good  as  that  of  young  men  in  general. 

Harvey  Dodge,  called.  Have  lived  in  Ober- 
lin  last  twenty-four  years.  Known  Bartholo 
mew  from  his  cradle  intimately.  Never  heard 
his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  questioned 
until  now. 

William  E.  Kellogg,  called.  Lived  in  Oberlin 
last  ten  years.  Know  Bartholomew  tolerably 
well.  About  as  well  as  most  men.  Don't 
think  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is 
quite  as  good  as  that  of  men  in  general. 
Would  believe  him  under  oath. 

George  Dewey,  called.  Lived  in  Oberlin 
four  years.  Known  Bartholomew  thus  long. 
His  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  as  good 
as  that  of  men  in  general. 

E.  F.  Munson,  called.  Lived  in  Oberlin 
sixteen  years.  Know  Bartholomew.  Never 
knew  his  character  for  truth  and  veracity  to 
be  called  in  question.  Quite  a  number  of 
years  ago  while  he  was  an  apprentice  to  the 
tinning  business,  he  was  charged  with  stealing. 
Never  heard  a  similar  charge  since  that.  [Is 
Postmaster  at  Oberlin]. 

John  S.  Dodge,  called.  Lived  at  Oberlin 
twenty-three  years.  Bartholomew  and  I 
grew  up  together.  His  reputation  for  truth 
and  veracity  is  and  has  been  as  good  as  that 
of  men  in  general. 

Chauncey  Wack,  recalled.  Have  lived  in 
Oberlin  eighteen  years.  Know  Bartholomew 
as  well  as  I  know  any  man  in  Oberlin.  Would 
unhesitatingly  believe  him  under  oath.  Am 
landlord  of  the  Russia  House. 

Prosecution  closed  its  testimony. 

Defence  closed  its  testimony. 

The  COURT  gave  the  case  to  the  Jury. 

At  the  request  of  the  prosecution,  the  Court 
adjourned  at  half  past  ten,  till  two  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon. 

[For  the  reports  of  the  arguments  of  the 
counsel  for  the  Government  in  this  case,  we 
are  indebted  to  the  Cleveland  Evening  Herald. 
Taking  them  as  there  published,  we  assume  no 
responsibility  for  their  accuracy.  We  believe 
them,  however,  to  be  faithful  so  far  as  they  go.] 

SEVENTH  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Court  opened  at  2  o'clock. 

[The  Marshal  reserved  the  seats  upon  the 
east  side  of  the  Court  lloom  for  ladies,  and  they 
were  speedily  filled.  The  Judge's  rooms,  ad 
joining  the  Court  Room,  were  also  occupied  by 
gentlemen  and  ladies.  Every  available  spot 
was  occupied  by  spectators,  and  nothing  save 
the  admirable  ventilation  and  the  lofty  ceiling, 
rendered  the  air  of  the  room  tolerable.] 

Judge  BLISS  opened  for  the  Government. 


He  commented  upon  the  crowd  in  attendance 
upon  the  Court,  as  proof  of  the  interest  the 
case  has  with  the  public,  being  novel  as  the 
first  attempt  to  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law ; 
this  case  excites  interest  because  some  wish  to 
know  if  the  Federal  laws  can  be  executed, 
and  some  desire  to  be  permitted  to  pursue  their 
rebellion  against  the  laws  of  the  country.  Some 
people  seem  to  suppose  the  States  have  the 
right  to  legislate  on  and  repudiate  the  law  of 
Congress  in  regard  to  reclamation  of  Fugitive 
Slaves;  some  States  have  passed  laws  in  con 
flict  with  Federal  laws  on  this  subject ;  Ohio 
has  laws  subject  to  this  objection,  being  in  con 
flict  with  the  Federal  power,  which  is  supreme 
over  all  the  States. 

Ohio  has  no  right  to  legislate  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  fugitives  from  labor. 

Counsel  quoted  the  clause  in  the  Constitution 
under  which  fugitives  are  recaptured ;  that 
clause  of  the  Constitution  underlies  the  Federal 
Union  ;  and  impugned  by  anyone  is  ipso  facto 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Under  that  clause, 
independent  of  any  law,  the  ownership  of  any 
slave  escaping  to  Ohio,  remained  in  the  owner  ; 
it  follows  of  necessity,  that  the  master  has  a 
right  to  follow  and  recapture  his  slave  in  Ohia 
This  question  was  settled  years  ago,  in  the  case 
of  Prigg,  of  Pennsylvania.  By  that  case  it  is 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  carry  out  that  clause ; 
and  counsel  cannot  imagine  how  any  lawyer  or" 
statesman  could  hold  that  the  State  has  any 
thing  to  do  with  it. 

The  Counsel  then  came  to  the  facts  in  this 
case :  Was  John  the  slave  of  Bacon  in  Ken 
tucky,  at  the  time  he  escaped  in  1856  ?  On 
that  question  Bacon  swears  he  was  his  slave, 
and  knew  John's  mother,  and  the  maternity  es 
tablishes  the  status  as  a  slave  or  free  man ; 
Jennings  testifies  that  he  knew  John  to  be  Ba 
con's  slave,  for  a  period  of  time ;  saw  John  in 
Oberlin,  Sept.  13,  1858,  and  captured  him. 
Mitchell  also  knew  John  as  a  slave  of  Bacon,  and 
knew  his  mother  to  be  a  slave.  This  evidence 
is  not  contradicted,  and  it  is  all  the  law  requires 
—  the  issue,  so  far,  is  established.  The  next 
fact  to  be  considered,  is  John's  escape,  and  that 
is  proved  by  his  being  found  in  the  common  re 
sort  of  fugitive  slaves,  to  wit,  in  Oberlin ;  but 
a  question  of  identity  is  endeavored  to  be  made. 
Counsel  read  the  description  of  John,  as  in  the 
power  of  attorney :  about  twenty  years  old, 
about  five  feet  six  or  eight  inches  high,  heavy  set, 
copper  colored,  weight  one  hundred  and  forty 
or  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds.  The  height  and 
color  are  disputed  by  defence ;  they  introduce 
three  witnesses,  who  say  John's  height  is  less 
than  five  feet  five  or  eight  inches  high.  One 
says  he  is  five  feet  four  inches,  and  two  others 
say  he  was  five  feet  four  inches ;  but  might  be 
five  feet  five  inches;  another  says  John  was 
about  five  feet  eight  inches.  The  evidence 
does  not  show  that  John's  height  was  mis- 
described  in  the  power  of  attorney ;  one  wit 
ness  says  he  was  in  the  habit  of  embracing  this 


44 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


negro,  or  of  playing  with  him,  and  their  bodies 
were  often  brought  in  contact,  and  he  says 
John  came  just  about  up  to  his  ear,  and  thus 
infers  John's  height  from  his  own  height.  The 
next  point  is  John's  color,  and  is  described  as 
copper  colored.  Bacon,  Mitchell,  and  Jennings 
say  he  was  a  full-blooded  negro.  Bacon  says 
he  is  copper  color.  Jennings  calls  him  black, 
and  Mitchell  would  agree  with  Jennings  rather 
than  with  Bacon.  Witnesses  on  the  other  side 
say  he  was  full-blooded,  and  call  him  black. 
At  the  same  time  there  are  blacker  negroes 
than  John,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Oberlin  have 
abundant  opportunities  of  knowing,  but  those 
living  in  Kentucky  have  a  better  opportunity 
of  knowing.  John  proclaimed  that  he  was  a 
slave,  that  he  escaped  from  Bacon,  and  when  a 
crowd  of  law  violators  were  around  him,  he 
said  he  was  Bacon's  slave,  and  must  go  back  to 
Kentucky ;  and  he  said  he  desired  to  go  back 
and  sec  his  master  and  his  mistress.  The  identi 
ty  of  John  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  every 
question.  As  to  his  weight  all  counsel  has  to 
say  is  that  he  became  a  victim  of  a  foul  disease 
contracted  by  leaving  Kentucky,  and  going  to 
Oberlin ;  witnesses  for  the  government  esti 
mated  his  weight  when  he  was  in  health. 
:  It  is  said  that  in  order  to  be  chargeable  with 
rescuing  a  slave,  it  is  necessary  to  show  notice 
on  the  part  of  the  claimant  of  the  character  of 
the  person  claimed.  The  Court  will  no  doubt 
charge  you  that  the  defendant  should  have  some 
notice  as  to  the  character  of  John  as  a  fugitive 
from  justice.  What  is  sufficient  proof?  Any 
circumstance  that  a  man  of  ordinary  appreci 
ation  would  notice  is  sufficient.  The  counsel 
read  from  Giltner  v.  Graham,  4  McLean,  p. 
418,  being  an  action  for  a  penalty  of  $1,000 
for  rescuing  a  slave  as  to  the  liability  of  persons 
who  join  in  a  rescue,  and  on  the  subject  of  the 
notice  to  rescuers,  and  the  liability  of  the  mem 
bers  of  such  a  crowd. 

The  Oberlin  people  who  came  to  the  rescue 
of  John,  knew  he  was  a  fugitive,  their  language 
showed  it ;  they  assembled  on  receipt  of  infor 
mation  that  a  fugitive  had  been  taken  by  slave 
catchers ;  all  agreeing  to  the  common  fact  that 
John  was  a  fugitive  and  as  such  was  captured. 
What  other  motive  had  they  to  assemble  for 
his  arrest  except  that  he  was  a  slave,  and  they 
intended  to  rescue  him  ?  Several  answered 
that  they  went  to  Wellington  to  rescue  a  slave ; 
some  were  in  favor  of  getting  a  process  for  the 
claimants,  others  that  they  cared  not  for  papers 
but  would  have  him  any  way ;  a  miscellaneous 
crowd  of  black,  white,  and  blue  —  for  some 
were  drunk —  crying  out,  tear  down  the  house, 
tear  off  the  roof,  brandishing  guns  and  weapons. 
Is  there  any  doubt  every  one  of  that  crowd 
kneAv  John  was  a  fugitive,  legally  held  by  due 
process,  and  their  intention  was  to  rescue  the 
slave.  It  was  known  that  he  was  held  under  a 
Commissioner's  warrant  to  be  taken  to  Colum 
bus  for  examination,  every  person  who  knew 
that  warrant  knew  that  John  was  a  fugitive 


slave.  The  Marshal  freely  exhibited  that  war 
rant,  showing  almost  an  undue  anxiety  to  im 
press  on  that  crowd  the  sacred  obligations  they 
were  under  to  let  him  alone  in  the  execution  of 
his  duty;  sending  for  the  Justice,  Constable, 
and  the  Lawyer,  and  Jennings  shows  his  power 
of  attorney,  thus  being  doubly  armed.  Procla 
mation  was  made  to  the  crowd,  and  the  warrant 
read,  and  Mr.  Patton  summoned  the  people 
and  read  the  paper,  and  they  all  gathered 
around  and  the  warrant  proclaimed  to  them 
that  John  was  a  fugitive  slave  from  Bacon,  and 
Jennings  was  authorized  to  arrest  him.  No  in 
formation  was  conveyed  by  the  warrant,  for 
they  all  knew  before  that  John  was  a  fugitive. 
The  negro  voluntarily  interfered  to  quiet  that 
crowd,  and  attempted  to  speak  to  the  crowd, 
and  said  his  master  had  sent  for  him  and  he 
must  go.  If  he  had  a  master,  of  course  he  was 
a  slave  ;  the  mob  interfered  and  told  him  not 
to  say  he  wanted  to  go  back  to  Kentucky,  and 
then  the  cry  arose  from  that  infuriated  crowd 
they  would  have  him  any  way.  Now,  shall  that 
crowd  say  that  they  believed  a  free  man  was 
being  kidnapped?  We  do  not  fear  that  South 
erners  will  come  to  Ohio  to  kidnap  free  men. 

There  is  no  need  of  Higher  Law ;  there  is 
no  need  of  the  rallying  of  the  children  of 
God — as  Lincoln  says  of  himself — in  the 
shape  of  a  riot  to  protect  free  negro  men  of 
Ohio ;  the  children  of  this  world  are  adequate 
for  such  duty.  When  these  Oberlin  men  went 
down  to  Wellington,  they  proclaimed  that  they 
did  so  under  the  Higher  Law,  for  they  knew 
they  were  outraging  the  law  of  the  land. 

It  is  a  pity  that  all  the  good  people  of  Ober 
lin  had  not  behaved  as  well  as  Patton  ;  had 
they,  this  indictment  would  not  have  been 
found ;  although  Patton  went  from  Oberlin  to 
Wellington,  and  his  motive  might  have  been 
good  or  bad,  his  conduct  there  was  honorable 
to  him,  and  counsel  would  say  to  all  his  asso 
ciate  students  at  Oberlin,  "  Go  and  do  like 
wise,"  and  you  will  get  the  respect  of  all  good 
men.  He  went  out  and  told  that  crowd  all 
about  that  warrant,  and  the  power  of  attor 
ney  by  which  these  men  were  armed,  and 
that  all  that  could  be  done  was  to  try  some 
process  of  law,  by  getting  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  which  according  to  the  Higher  Law  of 
Oberlin  might  have  superior  power  to  the 
United  States  Court. 

A  young  man  by  the  name  of  Butler,  a  law 
yer,  swore  that  he  was  in  the  crowd,  but  never 
heardof  a  fugitive  slave  in  that  crowd,  but  it  is 
in  proof  that  he  did  declare  that  John  was 
held  as  a  fugitive  by  lawful  authority,  and  said 
so  in  the  crowd,  and  went  to  a  Mr.  Marks  to 
furnish  a  horse  and  buggy,  that  he  himself 
mic:ht  go  and  get  a  habeas  corpus  to  get  John 
away. 

Look  out  for  the  forgctfulness  of  these  men. 
You  may  expect  that  they  will  forget  what 
took  place  in  the  crowd.  Patton  has  told  the 
Avhole  truth,  but  Butler  has  forgotten. 


OBERLLX-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


45 


Dickson  says  there  was  no  seal  upon  the 
•warrant,  and  spoke  about  it  at  the  time  ;  and 
the  marshal  said  it  was  not  necessary.  Mitch 
ell  says  it  was  the  power  of  attorney,  about 
which  this  conversation  took  place,  and  Jen 
nings  says  he  took  'the  power  of  attorney  out 
of  his  coat  pocket  and  handed  it  to  Dickson  to 
read.  Here  the  power  of  attorney  was  openly 
proclaimed  as  the  paper  on  which  they  claimed 
to  hold  John.  Counsel  does  not  say  that  Dick- 
son  means  to  testify  falsely,  but  his  memory  is 
not  so  good  in  facts  that  tend  to  sustain  the 
government,  as  those  that  tend  to  its  defeat. 
The  authority  by  which  John  was  held,  was 
the  joint  authority  of  the  power  of  attorney 
and  of  the  warrant.  Lowe,  Jennings,  and 
Mitchell,  all  held  possession.  The  indictment 
does  not  allege  that  he  was  rescued  from  a  war 
rant,  but  was  rescued  from  Jennings  acting 
under  a  power  of  attorney,  assisted  by  other 
persons. 

The  defence  says  the  indictment  is  bad,  be 
cause  it  does  not  aver  that  John  owed  service 
to  his  master  in  Kentucky  under  the  laws 
thereof.  But  the  indictment  uses  the  words  of 
the  statute.  Is  not  that  sufficient?  Such 
minds  as  Clay  and  Webster,  in  framing  the  act, 
did  not  think  the  words  "  under  the  law  there 
of"  necessary,  although  they  were  in  the  act 
of  '98. 

The  jury  will  be  compelled  to  find  that  the 
crowd  went  to  Wellington  in  defiance  of  the' 
law,  caring  nothing  for  it,  to  rescue  this  fugi 
tive,  in  the  midst  of  his  own  protestations  and 
against  the  right  of  his  owner  made  evident  to 
them.  Mr.  Bushnell  was  the  principal  one  in 
that  crowd  at  Wellington,  having  induced  per 
sons  to  go  there  armed,  saying  to  one  that  he 
had  no  business  there  unless  armed.  Bushnell 
is  proved  to  be  in  the  crowd,  and  there  is  no 
contradiction  of  the  fact  that  Bushnell  was  in 
the  buggy,  being  the  same  buggy  in  which  the 
negro  was  placed  It  was  not  Bushnell's  horse 
and  buggy,  and  no  therefore  must  have  been 
selected  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  negro 
off.  Bushnell  was  in  waiting  according  to  his 
office,  when  John  was  put  in  the  buguy,  cracked 
the  whip,  and  away  he  went.  At  Oberlin,  this 
is  thought  to  be  a  good  joke.  People  around 
Oberlin  think  so  little  of  their  government  and 
the  statutes  of  the  Federal  Government,  when 
they  interfere  with  their  sympathies  with  negro 
women  and  men,  that  they  consider  their  viola 
tion  a  good  joke.  Is  it  right  any  people  should 
impugn  the  laws  of  the  land,  knowing  no  law 
but  their  own  consciences  ?  This  is  a  serious 
question.  Any  jury  of  undebauched  minds  will 
execute  this  statute  in  the  same  faith  as  in  any 
civil  or  criminal  case  under  statute  law. 

Judge  Bliss  spoke  two  hours  and  a  half. 

Mr.  RIDDLE  addressed  the  Court  and  Jury 
in  substance,  as  follows  :  — 

May  it  please  the  Court ;  Gentlemen  of  the 
jury. 


The  progress  of  this  case  has  reached  a  stage 
n  which  it  becomes  my  duty  and  privilege  to 
address  you  on  behalf  of  the  defence.  In  the 
discharge  of  that  duty  it  is  also  my  right,  to 
discuss  just  such  propositions,  and  in  just  such 
a  manner  as  I  may  think  proper.  This  an 
nouncement  need  create  no  apprehension,  for  I 
have  no  ambition  to  play  moral  heroics,  nor  do 
I  design  to  pitch  the  key  of  my  remarks  above 
the  plane,  on  which  courts  and  juries  are 
obliged  to  dispose  of  the  every-day  affairs  of 
practical  life,  with  which  they  must  deal.  And 
I  trust  that  in  bearing  and  deportment,  I  may 
not  fall  below  the  gravity  of  this  high  occasion. 

It  is  no  purpose  of  mine  to  make  this  Court 
Room  the  scene,  and  this  trial  the  occasion  for 
th.e  expression  of  peculiar  views  and  sentiments, 
any  farther  than  they  properly  have  to  do  with 
the  issues. 

I  need  spend  no  declamation  on  the  impor 
tance  of  the  case,  in  any  of  its  aspects.  The 
novelty  of  the  issue,  the  character  of  the  evi 
dence,  the  argument  of  counsel,  based  on  tho 
central  idea  of  property  in  man,  mark  this  as 
standing  strongly  out  from  all  the  subject-matters 
ever  before  adjudicated  in  our  courts.  In  tlio 
sort  of  neutral  ground  that  ever  stretches  from 
the  feet  of  the  advocate  as  he  arises  to  the  act 
ual  case  which  he  must  discuss,  there  is  usually 
found  a  variety  of  matters,  usually  more  or  lass 
discussed,  which  I  shall  pass  unnoticed. 

There  is  one  subject,  however,  lying  partly  in 
that  neutral  ground,  and  in  part  connected  with 
the  gist  of  the  case,  upon  which  I  must  remark ; 
and  in  so  doing,  I  may,  and  probably  shall,  ad 
vance  sentiments  with  which  you  cannot  sympa 
thize  ;  and  for  the  utterance  of  which,  I  only 
ask  the  toleration  which,  on  all  occasions  I  would 
extend  to  you.  Whatever  diversity  of  senti 
ments  may  exist  among  us,  as  citizens  of  this 
great  free  State,  there  can  be  no  diversity  of 
interests. 

You  are  here  merely  and  purely  because  you 
are  such  citizens.  As  jurors,  you  represent  tho 
only  unqualified  democratic  element  in  our  gov 
ernment.  The  path  which  leads  from  your  citi 
zens'  seats  to  your  seats  as  jurors,  is  straight  and 
level,  or  rather  you  bring  your  citizens'  seats 
with  you,  and  sit  with  all  your  good  vigorous 
sense,  experience,  feelings,  sympathies,  hopes, 
fears,  passions,  and  prejudices  as  men  upon 
you ;  yet  all  chastened  and  elevated,  subdued 
and  toned  by  the  oath  which  binds  you  to  the 
duties  of  this  present  high  calling. 

As  such  citizens  and  such  men  only  shall  I 
address  you. 

,And  now,  as  to  the  matter  referred  to,  the  so- 
called  dogma  of  the  Higher  Law,  I  am  frank  to 
say,  gentlemen  —  and  I  never  had  a  sentiment 
I  was  not  ready  to  avow — I  am  perfectly  frank 
to  declare,  that  I  am  a  votary  of  that  Higher 
Law  J  And  I  here,  in  the  lace  of  this  high  tri 
bunal,  boldly  proclaim,  that  he  who  has  no  high 
er  regard  for  the  right  than  that  which  is  en 
forced  by  the  penal  code  of  the  country  whicli 


46 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


is  so  unfortunate  as  to  number  him  with  its  citi 
zens,  —  whose  moral  sense  does  not  rise  above 
the  coerced  observance  of  the  criminal  statutes, 
—  is  neither  a  good  citizen,  nor  an  honest  man. 
Right,  and  its  everlasting  opposite,  Wrong, 
existed  anterior  to  the  feeble  enactments  of  men, 
and  will  survive  their  final  repeal  —  and  must 
ever  remain  Right  and  Wrong,  because  they 
are  such,  unchanged  and  unqualified  by  your 
acts  of  Congress,  and  statutes  of  your  Legisla 
tures.  Will  any  mortal  say  that  there  can  be 
no  right,  no  wrong,  outside  of  the  U.  S.  Statutes 
at  Large  ?  Dare  any  man  arise  here  and  say 
in  the  face  of  this  sun,  that  the  gossamer  threads 
of  human  enactments,  can  break  through  or 
bind  down  the  everlasting  pillars  of  justice,  as 
set  up  by  the  Almighty  himself? 

It  is  conceded  that  the  will  of  one  man  can 
not  accomplish  this.  If  one  cannot,  ten  cannot, 
nor  ten  thousand ;  nor  can  they  confer  power 
on  any  man,  or  set  of  men,  who  can  do  it. 

You  may  erase,  expunge,  exile  and  outlaw 
this  thing,  Right,  from  your  Statutes,  and  de 
nounce  it  as  wrong,  and  still  it  is  Right.  Tra 
duce  it  till  it  seems  leprous  —  arraign,  condemn, 
and  execute  it  as  felon,  and  it  is  still  Right, 
Imperial  Right !  who  will  lord  it  right  royally 
over  the  consciences  of  men,  and  punish  their 
non-observance.  And  the  wrong  which  you 
enthrone  in  the  place  of  banished  Right,  is  still 
wrong.  No  matter  though  it  reign  till  proscrip 
tion  sanctify  its  ursupation,  it  is  wrong.  Jurors 
may  be  sworn  by  its  authority,  and  learned 
courts  so  adjudicate  as  to  uphold  its  supremacy, 
it  is  still  everlasting  wrong,  and  not  Right. 

Suppose  in  a  given  instance  the  old  right  has 
been  repealed  by  one  of  your  statutes,  and  the 
wrong  enacted ;  what,  then,  is  to  be  the  conduct 
of  the  subject  ?     Can  there  remain  a  doubt  as 
to  the  real  course  of  his  action  ?     "  But  he 
breaks  the  law  of  the  land  !  "  exclaims  a  pious 
patriot,  with  horror,  "  and  all  for  such  a  flaw 
as  conscience  1 "     A  word  about  that  thing  of 
breaking  the  "  law  of  the  land."     How  do  you 
obey   the   law?     Why,   either  by   doing  the 
things  it  enjoins,  or  submitting  to  the  penalty  it 
imposes.     Both  are  equally  obedience.     Every 
citizen  has  this  choice  held  out  to  him,  by  every 
penal  statute,  and  you  cannot  proclaim  a  man 
a  bad  citizen  when  he  acts  conscientiously  on 
his  choice,  nor  say  he  disobeys  your  law  when 
he  submits  to  its  requirements.     Suppose  such 
a  man  is  wrong  in  his  choice,  he  challenges 
respect  and  admiration,  and  is  not  amenable  to 
the  contumely  of  those  who  gibe  and  jeer  him. 
But  if  he  is  right,  if  the  path  of  conscience 
in  the  onward  progress  of  the  race,  is  ultimately 
recognized  as  the  way  of  truth  and  holiness, 
then"  gentlemen,  the   dungeon   to  which   you 
would  send  him  becomes  a  luminous  sanctuary, 
and  the  grave  to  which  you  would  consign  him, 
a  star-crowned  shrine,  to  which  the  feet  of  all 
coming  generations  will  journey,  to  gather  wis 
dom   and   inspiration!      And   hence  the  legal 
rule,  while  dealing  with  an  alleged  offender 


who,  in  the  observance  of  one  of  those  old  great 
rights,  has  broken  the  contravening  man  enact 
ment  —  the  statute,  as  against  him,  shall  receive 
:he  narrowest  possible  construction  to  exclude 
him  from  its  penalty.  Take  the  case  before 
you  as  it  would  have  existed  in  the  absence  of 
your  statutes,  and  state  it  the  most  strongly  for 
:he  Government.  This  boy  John,  so  poor  that 
be  had  no  father  to  give  him  a  name,  and  so 
abased  that  he  could  never  be  called  a  man, 
and  in  mature  years  could  only  graduate  an 
uncle  —  was  held  to  service  to  John  G.  Bacon, 
n  Kentucky.  Held  how  ?  by  what  contract  V 
under  what  obligations,  and  for  what  benefit 
conferred  on  him  ?  Because  he  was  a  slave,  is 
replied.  Because  he  was  that  thing  which  all  the 
laws  of  God  declare  cannot  exist.  How  came 
he  a  slave?  What  great  crime  had  he  com 
mitted,  the.  adjudged  penalty  of  which  was  this 
doom?  The  malignant  genius  of  his  race 
doomed  him  at  birth  —  he  was  born  a  slave  1 
He  belonged  not  to  the  God  who  made  him, 
the  father  who  begot  him,  or  the  mother  who 
bore  him!  but  to  John  G.  Bacon,  of  Mason 
county,  Kentucky.  He  was  a  slave  because  his 
mother  was  a  slave,  and  she  because  her  mother 
was  a  slave.  And  her  mother  was  ravished 
away  from  her  demolished  cabin,  murdered  hus 
band,  and  slaughtered  children,  in  the  wilds  of 
Africa,  and  did  not  perish  in  the  horrors  of  the 
middle  passage.  And  this  felon  right  to  tliis 
stolen  woman,  transmitted  unimpaired  through 
her  descendants  to  this  claimant,  constituted  his 
sole  and  exclusive  title  to  the  boy  John,  and 
he  held  him  in  Kentucky  by  just  the  same  rob 
ber  hand  that  the  ancestor  was  held  with  in 
Africa,  the  hour  of  her  capture.  And  this 
John,  thus  held,  and  under  this  obligation,  with 
the  wrongs  of  generations  burning  in  his  veins 
—  with  his  face  towards  the  North  star,  and,  as 
if  polarized,  fled  —  fled  in  the  night  —  fright 
ened,  as  captives  flee ;  over  the  snow-whitened 
earth,  under  the  stars,  and,  at  fts  approach,  the 
Ohio  river  congealed,  that  he  miyhtflce. 

The  claimant  pursued  him,  as  the  men-stcal- 
ers  pursued  his  ancestors,  with  shackles,  six- 
shooters,  and  knives,  and  by  the  same  right 
alone.  Overtaking,  they  added  the  sneaking 
artifice  of  the  thief  to  the  violence  of  the  rob 
ber,  and  seized  him.  As  they  thus  held  him  in 
his  agony,  the  defendant  and  his  associates  ap 
proached;  and,  knowing  John  was  a  slave  in 
Kentucky,  and  how  and  by  whom  he  was  there 
held,  that  he  had  escaped,  and  how  and  for 
what  purpose  he  was  then  seized  and  held ;  and 
knowing  all  this,  they  put  forth  their  strong 
hands,  and,  wrenching  John  from  the  grasp  of 
his  captors,  consigned  him  to  the  boundless 
realm  of  freedom !  This  is  what  they  did,  and 
all  they  did,  and  in  so  doing  they  obeyed  the 
laws  of  God,  as  written  in  revelation,  as  written 
in  the  free  creation,  and  stamped  in  the  nature 
and  instincts  of  man. 

Don't  be  alarmed,  your  Honor ;  I  know  this 
case  is  to  be  adjudged  by  none  of  these  princi- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


47 


pies  here.  I  know  that  this  highest  embodied 
achievement  of  the  Christian  civilization  of  the 
nineteenth  century  —  the  fugitive  slave  act  of 
September  18,  1850  —  always  to  be  named 
with  profound  gratitude  and  veneration,  at  one 
perpendicular  sweep,  attempts  to  clear  the 
whole  moral  decalogue  and  scatter  its  divided 
fragments,  and  I  know  I  may  not  ask  you  to 
set  it  aside,  or  the  jury  to  disregard  it.  But, 
warring  as  it  does  upon  every  element  of  the 
common  law  and  all  primitive  notions  of  right, 
I  am  authorized  to  demand  of  you  as  a  court, 
the  narrowest  construction  of  this  act  —  for  Law 
I  will  not  knowingly  call  it  —  for  the  very  pur 
pose  of  excluding  tnis  case  from  its  straitened 
scope ;  and  I  may  require  at  the  hands  of  this 
jury,  a  liberal  construction  of  all  the  conduct 
of  the  prisoner,  so  that  his  acts  may  fall  outside 
of  its  penalty.  In  the  defence  of  such  acts, 
arraigned  under  such  a  statute,  the  arts  and 
finesse  of  the  bar,  which,  when  exerted  in  favor 
of  flagrant  crime,  approach  chicanery,  come  to 
be  a  sacred  host  striking  for  beleaguered  inno 
cence  ;  and  that  stale  maxim,  that  "  a  man  is 
presumed  innocent  till  proven  guilty,"  that 
floats  an  imponderable  formula  in  the  legal  at 
mosphere  of  ordinary  cases,  arises  around  such 
a  defendant,  an  impregnable  fortress,  until  car 
ried  by  overwhelmning  proof;  and  those  intan 
gible  entities,  called  reasonable  doubts,  assume 
the  form  of  robed  angels  bearing  assurances  of 
escape  and  safety.  And  if,  over  all,  a  convic 
tion  must  take  place,  let  the  blow  fall  in  the 
presence  of  averted  faces ;  and  when  the  con 
vict  stands  up  for  sentence,  he  occupies  a  moral 
level  above  the  tribunal  that  pronounces  judg 
ment,  and  the  judge  who  dooms  is  abashed  in 
the  presence  of  the  criminal  he  condemns. 

Let  not  these  defendants  now  or  ever  be  dc- 
nouced  as  fanatics,  or  bad  citizens.  If  it  shall 
ultimately  be  found  that  they  violated  this  your 
statute,  they  come  to  suffer  its  penalties.  They 
have  not  sought  to  place  themselves  beyond 
your  jurisdiction.  Your  marshal  had  but  to 
notify  them,  and  lo !  they  are  here,  unresistingly 
to  endure  if  they  must. 

Yet  again,  I  repeat  it,  they  must  be  reached 
only  through  "  the  strait  and  narrow  way  "  of 
this  act  of  Congress,  unlike  that  other  way,  and 
leading  to  the  other  place.  They  are  guarded 
by  fiery  cherubim,  armed  with  the  many-bladed 
sword  of  the  common  law,  that  flashes  every  way ; 
and  all  are  to  be  beaten  down  in  this  legal  con 
flict  ere  they  can  be  reached. 

"Let  us  now  look  directly  at  the  case  under 
fhe  law  and  testimony.  Mr.  Riddle  here  made 
a  point  to  the  Court,  on  the  sufficiency  of  the 
indictment.  It  was  therein  alleged  that  John 
was  held  to  service  in  Kentucky,  but  did  not  state 
how  he  was  holden,  and  hence  the  Court  could 
not  judge  of  the  legality  of  that  holding. 

In  Miller  v.  McQuerry,  5  McLean,  469,  it 
was  decided  that  the  holding  to  service  within 
the  provisions  of  this  slave  act,  must  be  by  law 
alone  ;  and  hence  this  indictment  should  allege 


that  John  was  held  to  service  in  Kentucky  by 
the  laws  thereof.  It  follows  the  language  of 
the  statute,  but  that  is  insufficient. 

The  COURT  :  The  Supreme  Court  in  the  U.  S. 
v.  Mills,  7  Peters,  held,  that  for  misdemeanors 
it  is  sufficient  to  set  out  the  offence  in  the  lan 
guage  of  the  statute. 

Mr.  RIDDLE:  Very  well,  the  Statute  and  Con 
stitution  must  be  taken  together  to  form  the  law 
in  this  instance. 

I  have  always  understood  the  rule  of  good 
pleading  to  be,  that  where  a  statute  creating  a 
crime  clearly  defined  it,  you  should  follow  its 
language  in  an  indictment  under  it ;  but  where 
it  merely  named  the  offence,  the  indictment  in 
apt  words  must  set  up  the  acts  and  things  going 
to  make  up  the  offence ;  and  under  that  rule 
this  indictment  is  wholly  defective. 

How  can  the  Court  learn  from  this  indictment 
by  what  bond  John  was  held  to  service,  and 
short  of  that  knowledge,  how  can  it  determine 
that  he  was  holden  as  required  by  this  statute  ? 

This  is  not  the  instance  of  good  title  defec 
tively  stated,  but  of  title  upon  which  they  can 
alone  recover  not  stated  at  all.  If  not  necessary 
to  allege  that  John  was  held  to  service,  I  am 
clearly  certain  that  it  is  necessary  to  prove  it  by 
evidence  to  this  jury,  for  it  is  a  question  of  fact 
for  them  under  instructions. 

Does  your  honor,  or  can  this  jury  be  pre 
sumed  to  know  what  are  the  laws  of  Kentucky  ? 
Suppose,  as  a  historic  fact,  you  take  it  as  true 
that  Kentucky  is  a  slaveholding  State,  can  you 
go  farther  and  say  that  certain  classes  and  de 
scriptions  of  persons  are  slaves  ?  and  that  John 
is  of  that  class  and  description  ?  I  know  the 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court  and  its  judges,  as  such, 
will,  ex-officio,  take  notice  of  all  the  laws  of  all 
the  States,  and  for  the  amplest  reasons.  The 
rule  and  its  reason,  are  thus  stated  by  Judge 
McLean  in  the  case  just  cited  by  me. 

"  The  Supreme  Court  and  its  judges  recog 
nize  without  proof  the  laws  of  the  several  States, 
and  territories.  The  jurisdiction  of  that  Court 
and  of  its  members  extends  throughout  the 
Union.  In  the  respective  States  they  adminis 
ter  the  local  laws  so  that  the  laws  of  those 
States  come  under  their  special  cognizance  in 
acting  upon  individual  rights." 

The  Supreme  Court  is  bound  to  take  notico 
of  all  laws  within  its  territorial  jurisdiction,  be 
cause  of  that  jurisdiction  alone.  A  District 
Judge  by  the  same  rule  takes  notice  of  all  the 
laws  within  its  territorial  jurisdiction  only. 
How,  then,  can  this  Court  take  notice  of  the 
laws  of  Kentucky,  any  more  than  would  or 
could  any  of  the  Courts  of  Ohio  ? 

Suppose  this  Court  will  hold  as  matter  of 
law  that  Kentucky  is  a  Slave  State,  it  will  still,. 
I  presume,  require  proof  of  the  status  of  this 
John.  I  know  the  witnesses  swear  John  was  a 
slave,  but  whether  he  is  or  not  is  mixed  ques 
tion  of  fact  and  law,  not  to  be  proven  in  that 
general  way.  By  the  witnesses  the  Govern 
ment  must  prove  a  state  of  facts  which  under 


48 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


the  Kentucky  law,  will  constitute  a  slave.  The 
facts  as  proven  are,  John's  mother  was  a  slave  ; 
and  he  labored,  loafed,  and  lived  in  some  sort 
without  wages.  If  your  Honor  knows  all  the 
law  of  Kentucky,  can  you  tell  us  whether  a 
child  born  in  that  State  follows  the  condition 
of  the  mother,  contrary  to  the  rule  of  the  civil 
ized  world  ?  and  whether  a  person  receiving 
no  pay  is  a  slave  ? 

We  are  farther  informed  in  this  valuable  doc 
ument  from  the  Grand  Jury,  that  John  was 
owned  by  John  G.  Bacon,  an  allegation  to  be 
proven  as  laid.  John  G.  who  appears  before 
us  a  veritable  Scriptural  Patriarch,  swears  in 
set  terms  that  John  was  in  truth  and  fact  his 
particular  exclusive  and  unqualified  John.  He 
also  says  that  he  inherited  John  from  his  pater 
nal  Bacon,  and  has  living  a  mother,  and  five 
brothers  and  sisters  —  which  is  every  word  he 
says  about  it.  Mitchell  whose  especial  mission 
to  Ohio  was  to  be  a  witness,  goes  farther  and 
says,  that  John  G.  got  John  on  the  division  of 
his  father's  estate,  but  frankly  says  he  knows 
nothing  of  that  division,  or  whether  one  ever 
took  place,  except  by  rumor.  Thus  it  stands, 
then,  Bacon  the  elder  owned  John,  and  died 
leaving  a  widow  and  six  heirs  at  law,  and  then 
the  proof  stops.  If  the  Court  knows  all  the 
law  of  Kentucky,  will  your  Honor  have  the 
goodness  to  inform  me  if  by  that  law  this  par 
ticular  John  would  fall  to  this  particular  John 
G.  ?  If  not,  I  beg  to  suggest,  that  in  Kentucky 
as  in  Ohio,  he  fell  to  the  six,  who,  for  aught 
proven  to  the  contrary,  continue  to  own  him  as 
much  as  men  may ;  and  instead  of  his  being  the 
property  of  John  G.  as  alleged,  he  owns  the 
valuable  interest  of  one  sixth  of  him  only. 

This  indictment  farther  says,  that  John  being 
such  slave,  and  so  owing  service  —  what  an 
equitable  debt  —  on  the  first  day  of  January 
1856,  fled  — the  ungrateful  infidel!  He  ran 
away,  and  good  enough  for  him !  On  the  whole 
proof  I  think  that  allegation  true,  and  I  con 
gratulate  all  hands  —  the  Court,  the  District- 
Attorney,  and  particularly  this  naughty  John, 
that  this  is  proven. 

He  went  off  with  that  "  high-headed "  Di 
nah,  and  "  pop-eyed  Frank,"  and  it  seems  the 
infection  reached  the  horses,  for  two  of  them 
went  off  at  the  same  time.  Yet  whether  John 
and  Frank  and  Dinah  went  off  with  the  horses, 
or  whether  the  horses  went  off  with  Dinah, 
Frank,  and  John,  does  not  quite  appear,  and 
may  not  be  very  material.  It  is  very  certain 
they  all  scampered  off  together,  to  the  huge 
grief  of  John  G.,  the  detriment  of  religion 
South,  the  great  danger  of  the  Union,  and  the 
disgust  of  the  American  Eagle  generally. 

Court  adjourned  to  Tuesday  morning. 

On  resuming  the  next  morning,  after  recapi 
tulating,  Mr.  Riddle  went  on  to  say.  John  fled 
Jan.  1,  1856,  and  for  two  years  and  nine  months 
his  bereaved  master  lay  in  a  trance  of  stupefied 
horror,  at  tliis  act  of  ingratitude  and  treason,  ere 


he  fully  awoke  to  the  cries  of  mercy,  and  a 
bleeding  Union ;  and  kindly  offered  one  half  of 
John  to  whoever  would  catch  and  divide  him. 
We  are  told  that  on  the  4th  of  Sept.  1858,  he 
duly  executed  the  alleged  power  of  attorney, 
under  which  the  indictment  says  John  was  cap 
tured  and  held,  to  the  redoubtable  Anderson 
Jennings,  of  Mason  County,  Kentucky,  which 
causes  the  elephantine  proportions  of  that  wor 
thy,  to  loom  ominously  on  the  horizon ;  yet  ere 
I  turn  my  attention  to  him  and  his  doings,  I 
have  a  word  to  the  Court  as  to  the  legality  of 
this  power  of  attorney.  The  7th  section  of  the 
Slave  Statute  provides,  that  the  owner  of  any 
escaping  slave  "  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or  attor 
ney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney  in 
writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under  the 
seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  court  of  the  State 
or  territory,  in  which  the  same  may  be  execut 
ed;  may  pursue,"  and  capture  such  slave,  etc. 

The  power  of  attorney  given  in  evidence 
which  is  alleged  to  have  been  acknowledged 
before  Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  Mason 
County  Court,  Kentucky,  on  its  face  purports 
to  have  been  acknowledged  before  him  by  his 
deputy,  one  Richardson,  which  is  clearly  insuf 
ficient. 

Does  this  Court  know  that  by  the  laws  of 
Kentucky,  the  deputy  of  the  Mason  County 
Court  is  a  legal  officer  of  that  State  ?  If  so, 
the  acknowledgment  should  have  been  before 
him  as  such  officer  in  the  exercise  of  such  of 
fice. 

Can  it  be  performed  before  a  legal  officer, 
by  his  deputy  ?  Clearly  not.  The  laws  of 
the  State  designate  who  are  legal  officers,  and 
this  statute  designates  them  and  no  others,  as 
having  this  peculiar  virtue.  In  taking  this 
acknowledgment  they  do  not  act  by  virtue  of 
any  State  law,  nor  in  •  discharge  of  any  State 
duty,  but  wholly  and  purely  by  force  of  this 
statute,  and  a  deputy  under  the  State  law  can 
only  act  for  his  principal  in  the  discharge  of 
some  State  function ;  he  as  such  deputy  can  do 
no  act  for  his  State  principal  under  this  act ; 
the  moment  he  steps  out  of  the  line  of  his  duty 
as  a  State  official,  he  ceases  to  be  his  deputy  at 
all ;  and  this  act  authorizes  the  appointment  of 
no  deputies. 

Again,  the  taking  of  this  acknowledgment  is 
purely  a  judicial  act,  and  cannot  be  performed 
by  deputy.  "  The  legal  officers  "  of  a  State  sus 
tain  the  same  relation  to  the  statute  of  1850,  as 
did  the  justices  of  the  peace,  etc.,  to  the  old  law 
of  1798,  and,  according  to  Prigg's  case,  might 
act  under  it  or  not,  at  their  option.  They  must 
first  decide  whether  they  would  train  under  it, 
and,  having  so  decided,  must  then  perform  a 
judicial  function.  In  the  certificate  under  con 
sideration  it  will  be  seen  that  the  officer  says  he 
had  personal  knowledge,  that  the  John  G. 
Bacon  is  the  veritable  John  G.,  etc.  Now  can 
it  be  claimed  that  the  knowledge  of  the  deputy 
is  the  knowledge  of  the  principal ;  or  that  the 
chief,  in  profound  ignorance  of  the  fact,  can 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


49 


have  this  vicarious  knowledge  through  his  sub 
ordinate  ? 

And  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  ac 
knowledgment  is  an  act  before  the  clerk,  and 
in  no  sense  the  action  of  the  Court  of  which. he, 
is  clerk,  which  could  be  certified  to  by  a  deputy 
only  because  it  was  the  act  of  the  Court. 

It  is,  then,  with  entire  confidence  that  we 
rely,  that  the  ruling  of  this  court  will  be,  that 
this  power  of  attorney  for  these  reasons  is 
wholly  insufficient;  which  will  dispose  of  the 
case. 

It  is  further  alleged,  Gentlemen,  that  this 
Jennings,  armed  with  this  power  of  attorney, 
pursued  this  same  John  into  Ohio,  and  there, 
by  virtue  of  the  same  instrument  and  no  other 
he  captured  and  held  this  same  John.  Your 
closest  attention  to  these  propositions  is  re 
quired,  because  each  must  be  proven  as  laid, 
and  the  Court  will  tell  you  if  any  other  man 
than  Jennings,  by  any  authority,  no  matter 
what,  captured  and  held  this  same  John,  this 
case  must  fail,  no  matter  what  the  defendant 
may  have  done.  Then  with  a  desire  only  to 
arrive  at  the  truth,  arid  do  justice  between  the 
parties,  and  remembering  all  the  time  that  the 
Government  must  beyond  doubt  establish  its 
side  of  the  case ;  and  not  forgetting  that  it  is 
seeking  to  enforce  a  statute  made  up  of  umnin- 
gled  outrages,  let  us  scan  the  proofs  on  these 
points. 

Armed  with  this  power  of  attorney,  which, 
for  the  purpose  of  capture  and  the  extradition  of 
John,  subrogates  Jennings  to  the  rights  and 
powers  of  John  G.  Bacon,  what  does  Jennings 
do?  He  finds  himself  on,  the  8th  or  10th  of 
September  at  Oberlin,  with  full  authority. 
Mitchell,  the  witness  to  identify,  is  there,  arid 
dreaming,  unsuspecting  John  is  there.  Does 
he  want  assistants  ?  Is  not  Dayton,  one  of 
your  deputy  marshals,  there  also  ?  Why  under 
the  heavens  then,  if  John  is  to  be  taken  under 
that  power  of  attorney,  is  he  not  then  and  there 
seized  ?  Why  delay  and  give  him  a  chance  to 
become  alarmed  and  so  escape  ?  Can  any  mor 
tal  tell  ? 

Why,  plainly  enough,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 
because  it  was  never  intended  to  so  act  under 
that  power  of  attorney.  He  sneaks  off  to  Colum 
bus  to  one  of  these  high  and  mighty  commis 
sioners,  appointed  to  execute  this  Embodiment 
of  all  the  Virtues  of  Christian  Civilization  in 
these  Latter  Days,  and  there  uses  his  power  of 
attorney  for  the  only  purpose  for  which  it  was 
ever  given,  namely,  to  swear  out  a  warrant  for 
the  seizure  of  the  negro ;  and  this  is  all  the  use 
to  which  this  power  of  attorney  ever  was  put. 

Why,  what  was  Lowe  there  for  ?  If  Jen 
nings  could  call  Lowe  to  his  assistance,  exercis 
ing  all  the  functions  of  the  owner  for  the  time 
being,  he  could  just  as  well  call  any  other  man 
or  number  of  men.  The  United  States  Mar 
shal  by  virtue  of  his  warrant  has  no  more  power 
to  assist  in  the  arrest  of  a  slave  than  any  other 
man.  He  acts  not  by  virtue,  but  in  spite  of  his 

7 


high  office.  He  forgets  the  dignity  of  his  official 
position,  and  consents  to  play  pimp  and  pander 
to  this  bawd  of  American  Slavery. 

Jennings  passes  by  Marshal  Dayton,  goes  to 
Columbus,  arms  a  marshal  there  with  a  war 
rant,  which  is  not  needed  to  assist  an  owner  or 
agent  in  the  caption  of  his  slave,  and  returns 
to  the  precincts  of  Oberlin.  Keep  it  in  mind, 
that  this  man  Jennings  is,  for  the  time  be^ng, 
the  owner,  and  the  only  man  who  can  cap 
ture  ;  and  that  he  sends  Lowe  to  take  out  the 
game  after  the  trap  has  been  sprung,  himself 
the  while  sitting  quietly  at  his  ease,  with  the 
power  of  attorney  safe  in  his  inside  coat-pocket, 
in  his  room  at  the  celebrated  Russia  House. 
And  will  you  mark  it  well,  Gentlemen,  that 
this  man  Jennings,  being  only  an  agent  and  not 
the  actual  owner,  although  clothed  by  his 
power  of  attorney  with  full  authority  to  arrest 
the  boy  with  his  own  hands,  or  by  posse,  in  his 
immediate  presence,  had  no  power  to  confer 
upon  another,  either  by  parol  or  •writing,  the 
authority  vested  in  himself  to  seize  and  arrest 
this  boy  John.  The  power  to  appoint  is  exhaust 
ed,  so  soon  as  it  is  transferred  from  the  principal 
to  an  agent.  It  cannot  be  transferred  from  the 
agent  to  another.  Jennings,  then,  Gentlemen 
of  the  Jury,  not  attempting  himself  to  author 
ize  Lowe  to  recapture  this  slave,  but  having 
discharged  all  the  duty  for  which  he  came  to 
the  State  of  Ohio,  in  having  sworn  out  the 
warrant,  put  it  in  Lowe's  hands,  and  having 
pointed  out  the  game,  seats  himself  complacent 
ly  in  his  chair  at  the  Russia  House,  under  the 
benignant  administration  of  good  Mr.  Wack, 
having,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  his  power  of  at 
torney  safely  bestowed  in  his  revolver  pocket, 
while  Mr.  Lowe,  by  virtue  of  his  useless  luarrant, 
arrests  the  man,  and  establishes  him  in  his  cus 
tody. 

I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  agent  may 
not  call  assistants;  but  I  do  say  that  they,  if  so 
called,  must  act  either  in  his  immediate  pres 
ence,  or  so  near  that  he,  being  constructively 
present,  can  direct  and  order  their  movements 
in  any  emergency :  but  he  can  never  organize 
a  posse,  and  send  them  away  to  make  an  arrest ! 
any  more  than  could  the  owner  in  Kentucky, 
by  parol,  organize  a  band  and  send  them  into 
Ohio  and  legally  recapture  an  escaped  slave. 

I  know,  Gentlemen,  that  this  man  Mitchell, 
sent  to  Ohio  for  the  express  purpose  of  acting 
as  a  witness,  says  that  the  power  of  attorney 
was  actually  shown  to  John !  A  most  gracious 
favor  that,  indeed,  especially  since  he  tells  us 
in  the  next  breath  that  he  thinks  John  did  n't 
read  it,  because  he  could  n't,  and  had  n't  time  if  he 
could ;  and  Mr.  Jennings  swears  positively  that, 
at  the  time  Mitchell  avers  he  showed  it  to  John 
(when  the  arrest  was  made),  it  was  in  his  own 
(Jennings')  breast  pocket,  in  the  Russia  House, 
at  least  two  miles  from  the  scene  of  the  affect 
ing  interview  between  John  and  his  old  friend1 
Mitchell. 

But  who  seizes  John  ? 


50 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


It  matters  nothing  in  law,  to  be  sure,  since  it 
is  not  Jennings,  the  only  man  who  could  seize 
him,  or  direct  it  to  be  done  for  him ;  but  as  illus 
trating  the  animus  of  the  whole  transaction,  the 
question  is  one  of  some  interest.  The  carriage 
containing  the  worthy  trio,  Lowe,  his  assistants 
Davis  and  Mitchell,  overtakes  and  draws  up 
along  side  of  that  in  which  the  unsuspecting 
John  is  riding  leisurely  along  with  the  little  de 
coy  Shakespeare.  And  now  who  seizes  John  ? 
Mitchell,  who  may  be  said  to  be  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  in  some  sort  by  the  procurement  of  the 
owner,  John  G.  Bacon?  No.  Lowe,  the 
United  States  Deputy-Marshal,  with  a  warrant 
in  his  pocket,  under  which  he  comes  to  act  in 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  for  the  preser 
vation  of  its  essential  "  peace  and  dignity,"  — 
orders  his  Davis.  Yes,  Davis  seizes  John,  as 
deputy-marshal  Lowe's  assistant,  being  the  man 
farthest  of  all  removed  from  the  agent,  Jen 
nings,  himself,  who  alone  had  any  authority 
whatever  to  make  the  arrest  under  the  power 
of  attorney.  Davis  seizes  John,  and  then 
Mitchell  comes  to  his  assistance,  while  Lowe 
holds  the  horses  !  And  Mitchell  says  he  then 
and  there  showed  John  the  power  of  attorney. 
But  his  excellent  confederate,  Jennings,  swears 
positively  that  he  had  it  at  that  time  in  his  own 
pocket,  at  the  Russia  House. 

Rather  an  unfortunate  difference  of  opinion  ! 
Mr.  Mitchell  may  come  up  to  the  requisitions 
of  a  witness  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  but  for 
this  latitude,  is  rather  too  pointedly  contradicted 
by  Jennings,  —  if  Jennings  may  be  permitted 
to  contradict  anybody,  concerning  which  I  grant 
that  it  is  pushing  legal  impudence  about  as  far 
as  it  will  go. 

But  why  hasn't  Lowe  and  his  man  Davis 
been  placed  upon  this  stand  to  swear  that 
Lowe  sunk  his  high  character  as  a  deputy- 
marshal  of  the  United  States,  and  that  he  took 
some  part  of  the  authority  vested  in  Jennings 
by  the  power  of  attorney,  and  by  virtue  of  this 
fraction  arrested  the  boy  ?  and  that  he  did  not  act 
as  a  marshal  under  his  warrant  if  that  is  true. 
Can  there  be  a  particle  of  a  reasonable  doubt 
concerning  the  real  capacity  in  which  Lowe 
acted?  He  came  as  a  marshal  armed  with  a 
warrant  to  be  served  by  a  marshal,  went  out 
with  his  assistant  and  did  serve  it,  and  arrested 
John  and  held  him  as  a  marshal ;  which  he  can 
not  and  dare  not  deny. 

But,  Gentlemen,  when  after  that  brief  sepa 
ration  upon  this  benignant  mission,  the  two 
streams  of  authority,  one  flowing  from  the 
owner  and  the  other  from  the  United  States, 
united  again  at  Wellington,  is  there,  then, 
any  giving  up  of  the  less  to  the  greater,  and 
Jennings  assuming  the  control  of  John?  Noth 
ing  of  the  kind.  In  the  first  place  he  couldn't 
•do  it,  and  in  the  second  place  you  know  abso 
lutely  and  positively  that  he  never  did  do  it. 
It  might  just  as  well  be  said  that  a  man  who 
arms  a  sheriff  with  a  writ  of  replevin,  goes  to 
a  neighboring  town,  points  out  the  property  to 


be  taken,  and  pays  the  bills  at  the  tavern — 
including  of  course  the  "  smiles  "  —  could  say 
that  the  property  taken  by  the  officer  was  in 
his  (the  owner's)  custody.  Such  a  custody  is 
the  custody  of  the  law  and  not  of  the  owner. 
\Vhat  sort  of  an  arrangement  was  there  be 
tween  Lowe  and  Jennings — a  joint  possession? 
There  can  never  be  a  joint  possession.  The 
officer  captures  the  entire  animal,  holds  the 
entire  animal,  returns  the  entire  animal  to  the 
magistrate,  who  either  gives  up  the  entire 
animal  to  the  owner,  or  entirely  discharges 
him.  I  know,  your  Honor,  that  the  very  prop 
osition  shows  its  monstrous  absurdity,  and  that 
the  custody  of  the  owner  is  completely,  wholly, 
and  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  custody  of  the 
law.  The  law  tolerates  no  joint  custody  what 
ever.  It  takes  the  whole  man,  holds  the  whole 
man,  and  awards  the  whole  man  either  to  the 
claimant  or  to  himself.  Were  it  otherwise 
we  might  have  the  singular  case  of  the  com 
missioner  discharging  that  part  of  the  man 
arrested,  and  held  by  a  marshal  while  the 
owner  would  retain  his  part. 

But  let  us  pursue  the  question  of  fact  a  little 
farther. 

When  they  arrive  at  Wellington  and  the 
crowd  gathers,  and  the  inquiry  is  sent  up  — 
"  Who  holds  this  colored  man,  and  by  what 
authority?" — who  is  announced  to  the  crowd? 
The  best  answer  is  found  in  the  entire  testi 
mony  itself  upon  this  point.  Permit  me  to 
read  to  you  all  there  is  of  it  bearing  on  this 
point.  And  first  on  the  part  of  the  Govern 
ment,  which  may  be  condensed  as  follows. 

J.  G.  Bacon.  Made  power  of  attorney  to 
Anderson  Jennings. 

Anderson  Jennings.  Had  power  of  attorney. 
Had  it  at  Wellington,  and  showed  it  to  the 
crowd.  Fifteen  or  twenty  of  them  looked  at  it 
inside  the  room.  Sheriff  came  to  arrest  us; 
wanted  to  know  by  what  authority  we  held 
John.  Showed  him  the  papers. 

R.  P.  Mitchell.  Power  of  attorney  read 
to  them  [at  Wellington].  Thinks  a  lawyer 
read  it.  Several  asked  by  what  authority  we 
held  John.  Told  them  by  power  of  attorney 
from  Bacon  to  Jennings.  Think  Lowe  showed 
John  power  of  attorney  at  the  time  of  arrest. 
Think  John  had  it  in  his  hand. 

A.  S.  Halbert.  Patton  said  that  he  had  seen 
the  papers,  and  that  they  were  good. 

Jacob  Wheeler.  Saw  Jennings'  power  of 
attorney.  Lowe  called  on  all  of  us  for  help. 
Lowe  would  go  anywhere  and  show  his  papers. 
Did  go  somewhere  to  read  them  to  crowd. 

Barnabas  Meacham.  Asked  Lowe  to  go  out 
and  read  his  warrant,  and  I  would  see  him 
back.  We  went.  Stopped  on  steps  a  few  rods 
from  hotel.  He  began  to  read,  and  some  one 
else  finished.  Went  back.  I  told  the  crowd 
he  had  a  icarrant. 

Isaac  Dennett.  Saw  a  warrant  issued  by 
United  States  Commissioner  of  the  Southern 
District ;  also,  a  power  of  attorney.  Told  sev- 


OBERLDMVELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


51 


eral  that  Lowe  had  a  warrant  to  arrest  John 
Price.  Warrant  was  read.  Think  it  was. 
The  paper  shown  me  by  Lowe  was  a  warrant, 
made  by  United  States  Commissioner,  Southern 
District.  Somebody  put  in  my  hands  a  power 
of  attorney.  When  I  spoke  to  crowd,  told  them 
of  the  warrant,  and  may  have  said  "  papers." 
Saw  no  other  manifestation  of  the  marshal's 
authority. 

Ckauncey  Wack.  Fatten  said  the  papers 
were  right.  Said  nothing  of  any  power  of  at 
torney. 

Proof  on  this  point  by  defence. 

Joseph  H.  Dickson,  lawyer  at  Wellington. 
Meacham,  the  constable,  came  for  me  and  said 
they  wanted  to  see  me.  Took  me  in.  Lowe 
introduced  himself  to  me  as  the  United  States 
Marshal  who  held  John.  Showed  me  the  war 
rant  under  which  he  held  him.  I  read  it  care 
fully.  Noticed  it  had  no  seal.  Lowe  said  it 
needed  none.  Saw  no  power  of  attorney,  and 
heard  not  a  word  said  about  any.  A  man, 
whom  I  now  recognize  as  Jennings,  offered 
him  (John)  for  fourteen  hundred  'dollars.  I 
told  him  he  was  not  worth  that  in  Kentucky. 
Said  he  thought  he  knew  the  value  of  niggers. 
Another,  a  red-whiskered  man,  said  he  'd  better 
take  twelve  hundred  dollars.  I  supposed  the 
man  who  offered  to  sell  him  was  the  owner. 
Said  nothing  to  undeceive  me ;  nothing  about 
being  agent,  or  having  any  power  of  attorney. 
Told  crowd  of  the  warrant.  Never  heard  of 
power  of  attorney  till  I  came  here  into  Court. 

James  L.  Patton.  Went  up.  Lowe  took  me 
into  adjoining  room.  Told  me  he  was  the  mar 
shal.  Showed  me  the  warrant  issued  by  the 
United  States  Commissioner,  Southern  District. 
I  read  it.  That  was  all  the  authority  shown 
me,  all  the  paper  I  saw  or  heard  of.  Never 
heard  of  power  of  attorney  till  after  this  trial 
began. 

William  Hoick,  Justice  of  the  Peace  at  Wel 
lington.  William  Sciples  said  the  marshal 
wanted  to  see  me.  Went  up.  Marshal  showed 
a  paper  understood  to  be  a  warrant.  Had  no 
glasses  with  me  and  could  n't  read  it.  Think  I 
saw  the  word  "  Columbus  "  on  it.  Lowe  went 
out  and  read  it  to  the  crowd,  as  I  understood. 
Said  he  was  going  to  take  the  boy  to  Columbus. 
A  committee  might  be  appointed  to  go  with  him. 
Never  heard  of  power  of  attorney  till  in  the 
course  of  this  trial.  Talked  with  Bennett 
about  the  warrant. 

L.  S.  Butler,  law-student.  Stood  by  'Lowe 
and  Patton  when  the  warrant  was  read.  No 
ticed  there  was  no  seal.  No  other  papers  were 
shown  or  spoken  of.  Asked  some  one,  supposed 
to  be  of  the  party,  if  there  were  any  other 
papers,  and  was  answered,  No.  Heard  nothing 
of  any  power  of  attorney. 

Now,  Gentlemen,  can  there  be  a  particle  of 
doubt  as  to  who  held  that  boy  on  that  occa 
sion,  or  by  what  authority  he  held  him  ?  Did 
Jennings  come  forward  to  show  his  power  of 
attorney  f  Not  a  word  of  it.  That  power  of 


attorney  never  transpired  to  that  crowd  outside 
in  any  form.  LOWE  came  forward,  and  claimed 
that  HE  held  the  boy  in  ins  custody.  And  this 
Mr.  Jennings  all  the  while  hid  his  ponderous 
proportions  behind  Lowe.  He  did  so  when  Mr. 
Bennett  went  up  and  confronted  him.  Nobody 
but  Lowe  came  forward,  and  if  he  showed  any 
power  of  attorney,  it  was  only  to  prove  that 
the  warrant  was  sworn  out  by  one  duly  au 
thorized.  I  know  that  Mitchell  comes  up  here 
and  swears  that  it  was  a  power  of  attorney 
which  was  shown  to  Mr.  Dickson,  just  as  if  Mr. 
Dickson,  a  lawyer  of  extensive  practice  there, 
and  recently  the  District-Attorney  of  that 
county,  couldn't  tell  a  power  of  attorney  from 
a  warrant,  after  reading  it  through  carefully,  as 
he  himself  swears  he  did,  and  especially  did  n't 
know  whether  the  power  of  attorney  was 
properly  executed,  when  if  he  saw  it  as  it  is 
here,  he  saw  it  in  due  form,  and  with  the  broad, 
staring  seal  of  Mason  county,  Kentucky,  upon 
it !  And  it  is  altogether  probable  that  he  said 
of  a  power  of  attorney,  as  Mitchell  swears  posi 
tively  he  did  (and  this  Mr.  Dickson  corroborates 
as  applied  to  the  warrant  of  the  United  States 
Commissioner  shown  him),  that  he  "loasn't 
much  conversant  with  that  class  of  papers,  and 
could  not  consequently  say  positively  whether 
it  was  accurately  made  out  or  not ! " 

And  who  told  Dickson  he  was  going  to  take 
John  to  Columbus  ?  Jennings  ?  Oh,  no.  But 
Lowe,  the  Marshal,  says,  "  /  am  going  to  take 
him  to  Columbus  before  the  U.  S.  Commissioner." 
And  who  went  out  at  the  call  of  the  crowd,  to 
exhibit  the  authority  by  whom  and  which  John 
was  held  ?  The  elegant  and  accomplished  Mr. 
Jennings,  who  was  himself  three  times  as  inter 
esting  an  object  to  view,  and  who  certainly  could 
have  been  seen  without  placing  himself  upon 
any  very  elevated  stand-point?  No,  not  he; 
but  Mr.  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  the  redoubtable  deputy 
U.  S.  Marshal  of  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio, 
who  went  out  under  the  protection  of  Mr.  Pat- 
ton,  a  student  from  the  infected  district  of  Ober- 
lin.  This  gentle  Mr.  Patton  took  the  represen 
tative  of  the  United  States  of  North  America 
patronizingly  under  his  arm,  and  conducting  him 
out  into  that  dangerous  crowd,  read  his  warrant 
for  him,  under  which  alone  it  was  claimed  to 
that  crowd  that  the  negro  was  held,  and  then 
led  him  safely  back  again.  Not  one  word  of  a 
power  of  attorney ;  not  one  glimpse  of  Jennings, 
who  alone  had  power  to  hold  the  negro  a  single 
moment  under  it.  I  know  that  Mitchell  swears 
that  the  power  of  attorney  was  shown  to  Patton 
and  Howk ;  but  I  know  farther  that  they  both 
swear  positively  that  they  never  so  much  as  heard 
of  a  power  of  attorney  until  they  heard  of  it 
with  amazement  first  in  this  Court-Room.  The 
warrant  alone,  which*  our  less  favored  eyes  are 
not  permitted  to  see,  was  shown ;  the  warrant 
— for  withholding  which  the  Prosecution  have 
their  own,  and  doubtless  good  and  sufficient  rea 
sons,  and  without  seeing  which  we  must  proba 
bly  live  out  the  remnant  of  our  days,  and  die  — 


52 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


•was  only  shown  to  them.  If  there  was  any  thing 
ever  shown  in  a  Court  of  Justice  under  heaven, 
it  has  been  shown  in  this  Court,  and  in  this  case, 
that  this  ^negro,  if  arrested  at  all,  was  arrested 
by  the  warrant,  was  held  by  the  warrant,  and 
would  have  been  carried  off  by  the  warrant,  and 
by  the  warrant  alone.  And  therefore  if  the  law, 
as  we  see  it,  shall  be  recognized  by  his  Honor, 
these  facts  will  rise  to  Heaven  like  adamantine 
walls  around  the  devoted  defendant,  outside  of 
which  the  Prosecution  may  clamor  as  idly  as  did 
the  worshippers  of  Moloch  around  the  taberna 
cle  of  the  living  God. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  whatever  may  be  our 
private  views  and  prejudices,  I  trust  that  by 
this  time  we  have  so  far  put  them  aside,  that  I 
may  now  look  into  your  eyes  with  that  confi 
dence  which  springs  always  from  the  universal 
and  instinctive  love  of  Justice.  But  suppose  — 
contrary,  as  I  conceive  it,  to  all  possible  fact  — 
suppose  that  you  should  find  that  John  was  ar 
rested  and  held  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attor 
ney  ;  —  then  there  are  a  number  of  points  which 
naturally  range  under  other  parts  of  the  subject, 
still  to  be  discussed. 

Has  it  been  shown  that  the  John  Price,  arrest 
ed  by  Jennings  or  Lowe,  is  one  and  the  same 
with  the  John  that  escaped  from  John  G.  Bacon 
in  January,  1856;  and  that  the  defendant  Bush- 
nell  knew  he  was  not  only  an  escaped  slave,  but 
that  he  had  escaped  from  and  belonged  to  this 
particular  Bacon  ?  For  it  is  not  sufficient  that 
because  John  G.  Bacon  is  a  slaveholder,  and  has 
lost  a  John,  he  may  send  into  Ohio  a  fishing 
process,  and  gather  up  with  it  any  and  every 
fugitive  John,  and  then  whoever  shall  dare  to  in 
quire  whether  he  has  got  his  own  or  the  John  of 
some  one  else,  shall  thereby  make  himself  amen 
able  to  the  penalties  of  this  infamous  Slave  Act. 

John  escaped.  Very  singular,  indeed,  is  n't 
it  ?  There  is  some  fault  either  in  the  law  or  in 
the  theology  of  the  Peculiar  Institution.  There 
is  no  doubt  but  that  the  whole  race  was  doomed 
to  slavery  in  Ham ;  that  is  not  an  open  question. 
But  somehow  it  is  very  strange  that  the  Deity 
who  thus  doomed  this  nation  did  not  make  it,  in 
its  feelings  and  emotions,  better  adapted  to  its 
condition.  Just  think  of  John,  careless  of  the 
fiat  of  his  Maker,  and  still  more  careless  of  the 
interests  of  his  owner,  and  the  good  of  this  Con 
federacy,  lifting  his  huge,  shapeless  foot,  with  its 
enormous  heel,  and  with  the  best  part  of  the 
muscle  of  his  leg  on  the  wrong  side,  and  driving 
it  remorselessly  through  the  priceless,  precious 
porcelain  of  the  Union.  And  all  this  because, 
contrary  to  the  Act  made  and  provided,  he  was 
smitten  with  the  polar  fever,  to  which  persons 
of  his  class  are  so  alarmingly  subject.  And 
then  there  is  the  Ohio  river,  which  certainly 
ought  to  be  indicted ;  for  so-  chilly  was  its  cool 
ness  toward  the  interests  of  the  glorious  Union, 
that  it  actually  froze  over,  and  the  negro  walked 
with  impunity  over  its  icy  bosom,  toward  Ober- 
lin  !  Was  this  escaping  John  the  John  arrested  ? 

Jennings  swears  that  the  first  time  he  saw 


John  after  his  escape  was  at  Wellington,  on  the 
13th  of  September  last,  and  that  he  sent  to 
Kentucky  for  a  witness  to  identify  him ;  as  he 
doubtless  could  not  rely  on  his  OAVH  knowledge 
of  him ;  and  now  he  comes  up  here  to  swear  to 
the  negro's  identity  !  And  Mitchell  swears  that 
during  the  seven  days  he  was  at  Oberlin,  prior 
to  the  13th  of  September,  he  saw  John  but 
once,  and  that  was  when  John  chanced  to  be 
passing  his  window.  Upon  such  testimony,  up 
to  the  time  of  the  capture,  does  the  identity  of 
the  negro,  upon  the  part  of  the  Government 
rest.  Bear  in  mind,  too,  that  this  Jennings  had 
been  at  Oberlin  before.  And  also  that  there 
existed  at  that  time  in  that  neighborhood,  by 
reason  of  the  overt  acts  of  these  and  other  par 
ties,  a  feverish  state  of  excitement  with  refer 
ence  to  certain  colored  persons  being  clandes 
tinely  seized  and  illegally  carried  off.  Remem 
ber  that  Jennings  had  been  one  of  the  suspicious 
parties ;  a  man  who  could  by  no  means  be  hid 
in  any  one  building  in  Oberlin ;  that  Mitchell, 
who  pretends  to  have  been  a  very  intimate 
companion  of  John's  in  Kentucky,  had  been  in 
the  place  seven  consecutive  days ;  and  then  tell 
me  whether,  if  John  had  been  "a  fugitive,  his  in 
stincts  would  not  have  been  awakened  to  alarm, 
and  had  he  been  the  John  whilom  a  chattel  of 
this  Bacon,  he  must  necessarily  have  known 
Jennings  and  Mitchell,  and  would  certainly 
have  fled  while  all  the  others  were  excited,  he, 
who  must  have  had  the  best  means  of  knowledge, 
was  not  even  alarmed.  This  goes  far  to  show 
he  could  not  have  been  the  slave  of  Bacon. 
Remember  too,  that  John  escaped  just  at  that 
period  of  life  when  youth  is  imperceptibly  glid 
ing  into  manhood ;  is  gone  two  years  and  nine 
months,  living  meanwhile  altogether  a  different 
life  from  that  in  which  Mitchell  knew  him,  ac 
quiring  entirely  different  habits  and  manners, 
and  Mitchell  after  catching  one  glimpse  of  him 
through  good  Mr.  Wack's  window  —  I  have  no 
doubt  it  was  perfectly  transparent  —  at  once 
pounces  upon  him.  And  then  his  owner  comes 
up  here  and  swears  that  when  he  left  Kentucky 
at  the  age  of  eighteen,  he  was  five  feet  eight  or 
ten  inches  high,  and  would  weigh  165  or  170 
pounds,  and  was  copper  colored.  At  Ober 
lin  they  arrest  a  John,  who  is  positively  sworn 
by  a  number  of  unimpeachable  witnesses,  who 
had  the  best  means  of  knowing,  to  have  been 
not  over  five  feet  five  or  six  inches  tall,  weigh 
ing  from  135  to  140  pounds,  and  so  black  that 
he  shone!  Even  Jennings  swears  the  John 
they  captured  was  black.  Mr.  Clay's  laws  of 
bleaching  out  seem  to  work  the  other  way  at 
Oberlin,  whatever  they  do  in  Kentucky.  If 
they  say  the  Kentucky  boy  and  the  Oberlin 
boy  were  both  Jb/ms,  they  don't  come  any 
nearer.  For  the  Kentucky  boy  was  simply 
John,  while  the  Oberlin  boy  was  John  Price. 
In  no  solitary  point  do  the  descriptions  agree. 
Slaves  never  have  more  than  one  name.  They 
are  all  boys  till  they  get  to  be  uncles.  Do  we 
then,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  claim  too  much 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON   RESCUE. 


53 


in  claiming  that  the  boy  captured  at  Oberlin  by 
no  means  answers  to  the  description  of  the  boy 
who  ran  away  from  John  G.  Bacon  in  1856  ? 
Certainly,  if  evidence  is  worth  any  thing,  it  has 
most  clearly  established  a  glaring  discrepancy 
here. 

But  the  Government  rests  strongly  on  the 
sayings  and  doings  of  John  himself,  after  cap 
ture,  to  establish  his  identity.  These  rest 
wholly  on  the  statements  of  Jennings  and  Mitch 
ell,  his  so-claimed  and  newly-found  old  friends, 
who  enforced  their  assertions  of  kindly  interest 
with  such  mild  persuasives  as  five-shooters,  Ar 
kansas  tooth-picks,  and  substantial  bracelets,  as 
shown  by  their  own  testimony.  Under  such 
inspiring  influences,  and  surrounded  with  such 
genial  inducements  to  knowledge,  it  is  said  that 
he  opened  his  mouth  and  spake  wonderful 
things,  —  of  his  own  freewill,  of  course.  And 
what  did  the  inspired  property  say  ?  Why,  the 
same  things  that  all  such  property,  similarly  situ 
ated,  always  says;  or,  more  accurately,  is  re 
ported  as  saying.  That  he  is  the  identical  per 
son  sought  for,  guilty  of  the  escape  charged, 
truly  penitent,  tired  of  freedom,  of  course,  and 
only  anxious  once  more  to  behold  the  kindest  of 
masters  and  the  most  angelic  of  mistresses,  and 
have  himself  snugly  and  comfortably  sold  into  a 
rice  swamp,  beyond  the  reach  of  temptation ! 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  of  all  such 
yarns,  that  the  circumstances  of  the  speaker 
would  utterly  invalidate  whatever  he  might  say, 
while  so  situated,  with  any  intelligent  jury ;  and 
farther  than  that,  his  sayings,  introduced  here 
as  they  have  been,  have,  of  necessity,  been 
ruled  out  by  his  Honor.  Yet  they  are  still 
pressed  by  the  prosecution.  But  we  are  not 
left  even  to  the  plain  inference,  which  would 
sweep  away  statements  made  in  such  durance. 
Mr.  Mitchell  himself  tells  us,  that  when  they 
first  met,  John  denied  any  acquaintance  with 
him  !  Positively  and  pointedly  denied  it ! 
Rather  remarkable,  was  n't  it  ?  If  this  were 
the  very  John  with  whom  Mitchell  had  been  so 
intimate  for  eighteen  years  previous  to  1856, 
with  whom  he  had  worked  side  by  side  so  many 
months,  and  whom  he  had  thus  marked  so  well 
that  after  a  separation  of  two  years  and  nine 
months,  during  which  John  had  undergone 
many  and  remarkable  changes  of  stature,  color, 
weight,  manner,  and  dress,  he  instantly  recog 
nized  him  in  a  strange  place,  with  no  one  to 
call  his  attention  to  him,  and  this  through  one 
of  the  immaculate  magnifying  windows  of  the 
Russia  House. 

John  did  not  know  Mitchell,  and  never  saw 
him  before.  Oh,  I  know  he  knew  him  well 
when  he  arrived  at  Wellington.  A  duller  than 
John  would  have  profited  by  such  suggestive 
lessons.  Take  an  instance  related  by  the 
graphic  Mitchell.  When  he  went  up  to  John, 
in  the  wagon  with  Shakespeare,  John  had  a 
knife  in  his  hand,  which  Mitchell  ordered  him 
to  give  up.  John  declined.  Mitchell's  only 
reply  was  a  significant  movement  of  the  right 


hand  towards  his  revolver ;  and  the  knife  fell ; 
and,  in  the  language  of  the  immortal  and  ever- 
observing  Shakespeare,  in  that  serio-ludicro- 
comico-tragico  farce  of  Measure  for  Measure, 
"  the  whites  of  John's  eyes  turned  yellow  ! " 

It  was  under  such  teachings,  and  so  illustrated, 
that  John  rode  into  Wellington,  and  is  even 
brought  to  such  proficiency  that  he  is  made  to 
say,  that  at  some  time  he  even  left  Oberlin  and 
started  back  to  Kentucky,  and  got  as  far  as 
Columbus,  when  he  was  arrested  and  reluctant 
ly  forced  back  to  Oberlin !  And  this  wretched 
stuff,  so  forced  from  the  very  pores  of  this 
wretched  negro  in  his  extremity,  in  the  grasp, 
under  the  pistols  and  knives  of  this  gang  of 
armed  ruffians,  is  gravely  and  solemnly  urged 
here  by  the  gentlemen  who  observe  the  argu 
ment  as  proof;  and  we  are  tauntingly  called 
upon  to  disprove  it,  or  it  is  conclusive  upon  us. 
And  this  is  to  be  listened  to  in  a  so-called  court 
of  justice,  by  a  jury  of  freemen,  citizens  of  a 
free  State,  in  the  trial  of  a  freeman  for  his  lib 
erty  ! 

The  only  pretence  for  any  of  John's  sayings 
is,  that  they  accompanied  certain  acts  or  things, 
and  are  given  as  part  of  the  res  ycstcc  ;  not  to 
prove  any  fact,  but  merely  as  constituting  part 
of  a  fact,  or  thing.  But  that  miserable  fiction 
of  John's  attempt  to  return,  was  not  even 
coupled  with  any  act  or  fact.  Whatever  John 
may  say  in  the  custody  of  his  captors,  and  un 
der  their  catechizing,  is  in  durance,  and  would 
not  be  proof,  even  against  himself;  and  one  can 
but  shudder  at  the  measureless  infamy  of  offer 
ing  it  for  a  moment  against  a  third  person,  who 
was  not  even  constructively  present,  and  to 
whom  nobody  pretends  a  whisper  of  it  was  ever 
conveyed. 

Follow  this  refreshing  part  of  the  case  a  little 
farther.  At  Wellington,  after  some  hours  of 
tuition,  John  was  privately  exhibited  to  a  select 
few;  among  others  Jake  Wheeler,  by  his  offi 
cial  position  as  Postmaster  of  Rochester,  as  well 
as  from  principle  and  instinct,  enjoyed  the  high 
delectation  of  converse  with  him,  since  his  re 
generation,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
Marshal  Lowe's  posse. 

Jake  very  properly  indulged  in  philosophical 
speculations,  of  a  naturally  moral  tendency,  for 
John's  benefit,  explaining  to  him  that  he  had 
not  received  at  the  hands  of  his  master  training 
more  severe  than  certain  wholesome  exercises, 
which  even  white  parents  occasionally  find  it  nec 
essary  to  put  their  children  through  ;  and  it  is 
to  be  regretted  that  Jake's  own  education,  in 
this  particular,  was  so  sadly  neglected. 

But  these  wonderful  admissions  of  this  negro 
boy  in  durance,  prove  even  more  yet.  He  is 
made,  in  Mr.  Wheeler's  own  elegant  phrase,  to 
"  on  the  whole,  pretty  much  give  him  the  im 
pression  that  he  was  willin'  to  go  back;  "which 
another  of  the  Government's  witnesses  explains 
by  repeating  what  he  said  on  the  platform  to 
the  crowd,  that  "he  supposed  they  had  the 
papers  for  him,  and  he  would  have  to  go."  And 


54 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


thereupon  we  are  treated  to  a  paroxystic  paren 
thesis  upon  the  attachment  of  slaves  to  their 
"bonds.  Why,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  if  ever 
it  should  be  my  lot  to  have  my  loved  ones 
wrenched  from  me,  and  carried  by  their  captors 
to  a  distant  land,  and  my  government  was  not 
strong  enough  to  wrest  them  back  again,  and  I 
had  not  wealth  enough  to  buy  their  freedom ; 
and  in  after  years  some  traveller  should  come 
from  the  far  land  where  they  were  held  in  cap 
tivity  under  the  hard  hand  of  a  tyrant,  and 
should  tell  me  that  these  my  loved  ones  were 
sullen  and  moody  and  rebellious,  I'd  thank  God 
with  my  full  heart,  for  thus  I  'd  know  that  my 
own  blood  still  beat  with  its  old  pulse  of  free 
dom  in  their  quivering  veins.  But  should  he 
say  that  they  seemed  gay  and  careless  and  glad 
—  sang  and  made  merry,  and  danced  for  their 
masters,  I  'd  raise  rny  hand  to  Him  that  liveth, 
and  swear  they  were  none  of  mine ! 

But  what  did  the  negro  say  upon  the  plat 
form  ?  He  was  sent  out,  after  due  training,  to 
say  certain  things.  What  were  they,  and  did 
he  say  them.  The  first  query  is  satisfied  by  the 
answer  to  the  next.  What  he  did  say,  if  he 
said  any  thing  —  which  Jennings  and  Mitchell 
are  loth  to  admit  —  was,  that  "  they  had  the 
papers  for  him,  and 'he  supposed  he  would  have 
to  go  back."  In  the  presence  of  his  captors  and 
Wheeler,  he  almost  said  what  they  wanted  him 
to,  but  upon  the  balcony,  he  could  n't  do  even 
as  well  as  that.  I  know  that  Mr.  Wack  testifies 
that  "  he  thinks  John  was  just-a-going  to  say 
he  wanted  to  go  back,"  when  he  got  "  skeered  " 
and  fled  in,  but  I  question  whether  even  the 
Government  is  quite  ready  to  claim  to  you, 
Gentlemen,  that  such  supposition  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Wack  is  conclusive  evidence  of  John's  vol 
untary  state  of  mind! 

And  now,  on  the  whole  proof,  including 
John's  statements  upon  this  point  of  his  identity, 
I  claim  the  balance  is  with  us.  A  copper-colored 
fled,  an  ebony  black  was  captured ;  a  youth 
of  eighteen,  weighing  165  or  175  pounds  fled, 
a  man  weighing  135  or  140  was  taken;  a  boy  of 
the  grenadier  height  of  five  feet  eight  or  ten  inches 
escaped,  and  one  dwarfed  to  five  feet  five  ar 
rested  !  Can  he  be  the  same  ? 

But  there  remain  other  and  very  important 
points  to  be  noticed,  waiving,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  them,  even  the  question  of  John's 
identity. 

If  he  was  a  fugitive  slave,  was  this  fact 
known,  generally  known  ?  So  generally  known 
at  Oberlin  that  this  defendant  can  be  charged 
with  notice  of  it  ?  If  not  thus  generally  known, 
it  must  appear  either  that  it  was  brought  to  his 
notice  personally,  or  to  the  notice  of  a  crowd 
acting  with  unanimity  and  in  concert,  and  of 
which  he  was  a  member. 

It  is  not  in  proof  at  what  time  John  arrived 
at  Oberlin.  The  presumption  in  Ohio  would 
be,  not  that  he  was  a  slave,  but  that  he  was  a 
free  man,  so  that  whether  he  had  resided  any 
considerable  time  there  or  not,  the  legal  pre 


sumption  of  every  citizen  would  be  that  of  the 
law  in  favor  of  his  freedom,  and  there  would  be 
nothing  in  his  color  or  his  arrival  to  charge  the 
defendant  with  notice  that  he  was  a  fugitive,  or 
to  put  him  upon  inquiry  concerning  his  status. 
And  he  who  would  charge  such  notice  upon 
the  defendant  is  bound  to  prove  it. 

It  is  in  proof  here,  perhaps,  that  to  one  or 
two  citizens  of  Oberlin,  privately,  John  said 
that  he  was  an  escaped  slave ;  but,  that  that 
came  to  be  a  matter  of  general  conversation 
and  knowledge  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof. 
On  the  contrary,  the  proof  is  indubitable — 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  looks  other 
wise —  that  on  the  early  part  of  the  afternoon 
of  the  day  of  the  alleged  rescue,  on  the  hasty 
gathering  of  the  people  at  Oberlin,  it  was  said 
throughout  the  crowd  that  John  had  been  kid- 
•lapped,  the  question  of  his  having  once  been  a 
slave  not  being  raised.  And  upon  this  impres-' 
sion  it  is  abundantly  proven  that  the  crowd 
acted  both  at  Oberlin  and  Wellington.  And 
so  firmly  fixed  was  this  conviction  in  their 
minds,  that  when  they  got  to  Wellington  they 
went  and  swore  out  a  warrant,  predicated  upon, 
the  fact  that  the  negro  was  certainly  held  in 
illegal  custody.  And  one  of  the  most  important 
witnesses  for  the  Government,  Halbert,  who 
claims  to  have  been  constantly  in  the  crowd, 
both  at  Oberlin  and  Wellington,  being  asked 
why  he  spoke  of  John  as  a  "  fugitive,"  said,  "  he 
did  n't  know ! "  Nothing  in  the  testimony 
favors  the  supposition  that  John  was,  or  was 
regarded  by  the  crowd  that  rescued  him,  as  a 
fugitive.  So  far  from  it,  every  thing  we  can 
learn  of  his  conduct  and  circumstances  goes  to 
show  the  contrary. 

And  now,  what  were  the  circumstances  col 
lateral  with  and  immediately  prior  to  the  arrest 
of  John,  as  bearing  on  this  question  of  knowl 
edge  ?  I  shall  say  little  here  of  the  means  by 
which  information  was  conveyed  from  Oberlin 
to  Kentucky,  of  the  residence  at  the  former 
place  of  certain  supposed  fugitive  slaves ;  it  is 
an  unpleasant  subject.  But  I  cannot  conceive 
how  any  individual,  born  and  grown  —  to  say 
nothing  of  "  bringing  up  "  —  here  at  the  North, 
should  have  it  in  his  heart  to  steal  into  that  he 
might  betray  the  confidence  of  a  fugitive,  be 
prejudiced  as  we  may  of  his  color  and  condition. 
And  as  to  the  condition  of  this  crushed  and 
smitten  people,  we  should  never  forget  that 
they  are  here  always  against  their  own  will. 
The  tribes  of  Africa  never  migrate.  So  many 
of  them  as  are  among  us  WE  stole,  and  ironed, 
and  forced  here,  and  for  this  we  at  the  North 
are  as  responsible  as  our  brethren  at  the  South. 
Our  fathers  were  one  with  their  fathers  in  this 
sad,  sad  work.  Neither  the  men  of  to-day  who 
hold  slaves  in  Kentucky,  nor  we  of  Ohio,  who 
to-day  lift  our  voices  against  the  institution, 
founded  it,  though  we  are  all  responsible  for  its 
continuance.  There  may  be  a  difference  m 
the  responsibility  of  sanctioning  and  perpetua 
ting  it,  and  if  there  be,  no  words  can  express 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


55 


the  Beater  guilt  of  him  who  here,  untrammelled 
by  education  or  prejudice,  unfettered  by  public 
opinion,  enlightened  by  the  free  and  prevailing 
influences  of  Truth,  chooses  to  sustain  an  insti 
tution  in  the  presence  of  which  all  other  crimes 
look  pallid,  stand  blanched  with  horror  into  the 
pale  semblance  of  innocence !  I  can  in  some 
degree  understand  and  allow  for  the  totally 
different  sentiments  of  our  Southern  brethren 
on  this  great  question.  The  first  objects  that 
meet  the  first  opening  of  their  eyes,  are  wrought 
and  emblazoned  forms  and  images  of  slavery. 
To  the  Southerner  his  first  breath  comes  thick 
with  its  atmosphere  and  influence.  Ah1  the 
sounds  that  steal  upon  his  ear  are  its  many-min 
gled  voices,  half  joyous,  all  sad,  at  once  a  wail, 
a  chant,  a  jubilee,  and  requiem.  It  is  all 
around,  over  and  under  him,  and  becomes  part 
and  parcel  of  his  being,  and  necessary  to  his 
existence.  Wherever  he  goes,  wherever  he 
stops,  lies  down  or  rises  up,  it  is  everywhere 
with  him,  in  Church  and  State,  with  all  his 
memories  of  the  past,  his  present  surroundings, 
and  hopes  of  the  future.  To  him  it  is  as  if  it 
always  was,  and  must  ever  be  —  a  present,  per 
manent  good. 

To  one  of  us,  every  breath,  every  mouthful 
of  food,  or  shred  of  clothing  thus  enjoyed,  is  a 
larceny  from  the  sinews,  hearts,  and  souls  of  a 
whole  race.  I  can  also  understand  how,  in  the 
half-barbaric  profusion  and  license  of  Southern 
slavery,  these  coarse,  bloated,  bullying,  cowardly 
swaggerers,  —  great,  hairy  maggots  warmed  into 
life  in  the  hot,  seething  carcase  of  rotten  slavery, 
—  can  exist,  and  the  needs  for  such  existences, 
for  I  have  seen  them  among  us.  But,  I  repeat  it, 
I  cannot  comprehend  how  a  mass  of  feculence 
can  exist  at  the  North,  in  which  God  can  toler 
ate  life,  that  outrages  human  nature  by  crawl 
ing  into  the  human  form,  so  abject  and  vile  that 
it  can  prey  upon  and  trade  in  the  misfortunes 
of  these  wretched  fugitives  from  slavery. 

Take  this  John ;  without  a  father  to  protect, 
a  mother  to  cherish,  a  sister  to  love,  or  a  brother 
to  sympathize  with  him,  —  a  houseless,  homeless, 
wandering  vagabond,  without  money  to  buy 
friends,  eloquence  to  charm,  or  beauty  to  seduce. 
Black,  abject,  ignorant,  abased ;  unwashed,  un 
fed,  unclothed ;  infected  with  a  disease  that  out 
laws;  a  waif  by  the  way-side  of  human  life, 
whose  presence  offended  even  the  eye  of  char 
ity.  And  yet  there  was  on  this  earth  a  being 
so  abject  that  it  could  steal  upon,  and  warming 
his  brutal  soul  with  the  voice  of  affected  kind 
ness,  for  the  only  purpose  of  betraying  into  a 
captivity  so  abhorrent,  that  even  John  had  the 
courage  and  energy  to  flee  from  it !  Oh !  this 
was  a  treason  so  measureless  and  profound,  that 
the  years  of  God's  eternity  will  be  strained  to 
punish  it ! 

And  it  is  an  everlasting  answer  to  the  charge 
of  fanatical  intolerance  made  against  Oberlin, 
that  such  creatures  are  permitted  to  live  and 
breathe  there,  and  quietly  pursue  the  only  mis 
sion  of  their  existences. 


Let  us  look  a  little  more  into  the  detail  of 
the  facts  of  John's  capture.  That  he  was  be 
trayed  we  already  know,  and  in  part  the  means 
of  his  capture.  When  we  are  told  that  a  right 
of  property  in  man  is  recognized  and  guaran 
teed  at  the  South,  we  are  bound  to  presume,  in 
the  absence  of  proof,  that  it  is  modified  and 
held  just  like  other  rights  of  property.  And 
now,  gentlemen,  if  one  of  you  owned  a  horse 
that  had  strayed  into  Lorain  county,  would 
you  go  to  reclaim  him  wherever  you  could  find 
him  according  to  law,  or  would  you  hire  some 
body  to  steal  him,  and  in  such  a  way  that 
you  could  only  be  thought  to  be  a  common 
horse  thief,  and  in  all  human  probability  sub 
ject  yourself  to  punishment  as  such  ?  How  did 
this  Jennings  seek  to  reclaim  his  principal's 
property,  which  for  the  purposes  of  arrest  is 
considered  to  be  his  own?  Docs  he  come 
openly  in  the  power  and  authority  of  the  in 
strument  which  constitutes  him  an  attorney  to 
reclaim  him  ?  No.  Or  even  with  the  mockery 
of  an  illegal  and  useless  warrant  ?  No.  But 
he  seeks  out  this  little  unfortunate  Shakespeare 
Boynton,  —  for  in  my  mind,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  more  melancholy 
sight  than  that  alarmingly  precocious  little  de 
ceiver  presents,  himself  the  evil  genius  of  this 
disgusting  transaction,  so  far  outrunning  total 
depravity  itself,  that,  halting  behind,  it  soon 
strains  its  eyes  in  vain  to  see  which  way  "  he 
went."  He  seeks  out  this  unfortunate  boy,  ar 
ranges  with  him  to  decoy  John  if  possible  to  his 
father's,  under  the  pretence  of  employment, 
where  the  residue  of  this  wretched  business 
might  with  security  be  accomplished.  Jen 
nings  says  he  informed  Shakespeare's  father  of 
the  arrangement.  I  must  hope  that  Jennings 
lied  in  this,  and  that  this  nameless  crime  had 
not  the  added  infamy  of  paternal  sanction. 
There  is  much  in  what  we  know  of  Jennings  to 
warrant  this  hope.  Bacon,  for  instance,  swore 
that  it  was  agreed  that  if  Jennings  returned 
John,  he  was  to  be  sold,  and  the  proceeds  of  his 
body,  brains,  and  blood,  honestly  and  piously 
divided  between  them.  Jennings  pointedly  de 
nies  this,  and  in  so  doing  unquestionably  lies, 
deliberately,  purposely,  and  unqualifiedly. 

This  arrangement  completed,  the  Kentuckian 
returns  to  his  quarters  in  Oberlin.  The  next 
morning  Shakespeare,  with  a  horse  and  buggy, 
makes  an  early  appearance.  Tho  lie  agreed 
on,  it  is  found,  will  not  work,  for  Frank  has 
got  .his  throat  cut,  and  John  must  stay  with 
him ;  but  in  an  instant  the  little  genius's  fertile 
brain  supplies  another  device.  Jennings  in 
dorses  it,  doubles  the  promised  hire,  and  the 
unsuspecting  negro,  trusting  implicitly  to  the 
snakish  generosity  of  his  "young  massa,"  ac 
cepts  the  extraordinary  bounty  of  a  ride  into 
the  country,  and  thus  steps  into  the  snare  fitted 
for  his  feet.  Shakespeare  directs  his  horse  to 
a  secluded  place  in  the  highway,  lags,  is  over 
taken,  and  leaves  the  wretched,  ignorant,  help 
less,  unarmed,  unfriended  negro  boy,  whom  he 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


was  hired  to  He  to  and  decoy,  that  he  might  be 
•waylaid  and  stolen ;  in  the  hands  of  the  mis 
creants  who  had  the  courage  finally  to  steal 
him.  I  aver  it  was  stealing, — the  meanness  of 
larceny  with  ruffian  violence  of  the  highway 
robber !  And  think  by  whom  this  outrage  was 
perpetrated.  The  nation — the  administration 
in  the  person  of  its  official  performed  it.  Hail 
Columbia !  What  a  stride  in  a  nation's  glory ! 
Ring  down  the  curtain  on  every  thing  great 
and  glorious  in  the  old  days !  Spike  and  muz 
zle  the  old  cannon  that  sunk  the  British  breast 
works  at  Yorktown,  and  the  British  fleet  on 
Lake  Eric!.  Roll  up  and  lay  away  the  old 
banner  of  freedom,  that  has  flouted  over  a  hun 
dred  red  and  rent  fields  !  Ring  up  the  curtain 
on  this  new  era  of  filibustering,  reopening  of  the 
slave  trade,  and  stealing  negroes  at  the  North ! 
Let  the  shout  ring  through  all  the  sunny 
South  —  "one  more  nigger  catched,  and  the 
Union  saved ! " 

We  owe  no  grudge  toward  our  brethren  at 
the  South,  and  least  of  all  towards  those  of 
gallant  Kentucky,  to  whom  we  are  bound  not 
only  by  ties  of  fraternity,  but  by  an  obligation 
of  gratitude  which  we  choose  not  to  forget,  for 
succor  nobly  given  us  in  the  hour  of  extremest 
peril.  We  remember  that  on  Ohio  soil  there 
fought  and  died  Kentucky  heroes  side  by  side 
with  our  fathers  and  brothers,  all  struggling  to 
gether  in  the  fervid  heat  of  heroic  patriotism 
in  the  common  cause  of  our  common  country, 
when  we  yet  had  a  country  worth  loving  and 
dying  for.  And  if  to-morrow  Kentucky  should 
be  invaded  by  a  foe,  to-morrow  150,000  bayo 
nets  would  go  sparkling  across  the  Ohio,  borne 
by  arms  as  brave,  and  over  hearts  as  true  as 
ever  faced  an  invader,  and  Kentucky  should 
feel  that  Ohio  was  neither  forgetful  nor  un 
grateful.  We  remember,  too,  that  Kentucky 
holds  the  grave  of  our  Clay  and  the  home  of 
another.  There,  too,  still  lives  Crittenden,  in 
the  effulgence  of  ripened  honors,  whom  we 
love  and  venerate.  But  we  will  not  tolerate 
this  mode  of  reclaiming  property  of  any  kind, 
nor  this  mode  of  enforcing  any  law  of  Con 
gress  or  otherwise.  If  the  property  of  a  Ken- 
tuckian  strays  into  Ohio,  let  him  come  openly 
after  it,  like  an  honest  man,  and  claim  his  own 
boldly.  We  will  not  tolerate  that  mode  of 
approach  which  steals  in  like  a  thief,  pounces 
upon  its  object  of  pursuit  as  upon  prey,  and 
flees  away  like  a  felon. 

It  is  indeed  to  me  a  queer  test  of  patriotism, 
that  a  man  must  not  only  swear  by  the  Consti 
tution,  but  also  by  the  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large, 
Story's  Edition  !  Are  we  at  that  point,  that  no 
man  can  be  a  good  citizen  or  a  patriot,  unless 
he  believes  not  only  in  the  Union,  Star  Span 
gled  Banner,  the  American  Eagle,  and  Bunker 
Hill,  as  we  all  now  here  do ;  but  our  faith  must 
reach  every  Act  of  Congress,  and  every  ruling 
of  the  Federal  Court  You  cannot  and  shall 
not  so  enforce  this  Slave  Statute  in  Ohio. 
The  united,  concentrated,  and  condensed  wis 


dom  and  power  of  the  Union,  cannot  so  en 
force  it  here.  If  your  slaves  flee  to  Ohio,  it  is 
at  least  worth  the  while  of  trying  to  reclaim 
them  by  other  means.  Let  their  educated  and 
gentlemanly  proprietors  come  and  seek  them  in 
as  honorable  a  way  as  such  a  mission  can  be 
performed.  But  don't  send  your  Jennings  and 
Mitchells  with  revolvers  and  knives  and  man 
acles  to  rob  and  steal  them  away.  If  slavery 
is  right,  show  it  to  us.  If  it  is  taught  in  the 
Bible  send  us  your  Doctors  of  Divinity  to  ex 
pound  this  gospel  to  us.  We  believe  the  Bible 
practically,  every  day  and  all  the  time.  To  us 
it  is  a  present  revelation  for  daily  use.  We 
do  not  thrust  it  by,  never  to  be  recurred  to  un 
til  it  is  wanted  as  a  barricade  to  defend  some 
hideous  villany,  under  which  the  solid  earth 
shudders. 

A  new  test  of  fidelity  to  our  country  has  in 
deed  long  obtained  in  political  circles  not  to  be 
here  named  by  me,  —  but  it  was  never  until  the 
gentleman's  [Judge  Bliss]  argument  yesterday, 
named  in  a  Court  —  called  of  Justice  —  before. 
If  this  be  the  test,  the  last  man  in  the  Union  to 
apply  it  on  our  brethren  of  the  South.  I  need 
not  to  stop  here  to  enumerate  even  a  few  of  the 
many  startling  instances  on  record  in  which 
they  have  boldly  risen  up  as  individuals,  con 
ventions,  communities,  legislative  bodies,  and 
judicial  tribunals,  and  whole  States,  and  refused 
to  obey  edicts  of  the  Federal  Government,  be 
cause  they  believed  them  oppressive,  or  uncon 
stitutional.  Why,  the  Democrats  would  never 
tolerate  a  United  States  Bank,  notwithstanding 
the  laws  of  Congress  and  decisions  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

I  have  nothing  to  do  with  enticing  slaves 
away,  nor  sympathy  with  those  who  do ;  but  if 
a  fugitive  comes  to  me  in  his  flight  from  slavery, 
and  is  in  need  of  food  and  clothing  and  shelter 
and  rest  and  comfort  and  protection  and 
means  of  further  flight,  —  if  he  needs  any  or 
all  the  gentle  charities  which  a  Christian  man 
may  render  to  any  human  being  under  any  cir 
cumstances,  so  help  me  the  great  God  in  my 
extremest  need,  he  shall  have  them  all !  [Great 
applause.] 

[The  District- Attorney  hoped  that  if  these 
disturbances  were  repeated,  the  disturbers 
would  be  taken  into  custody. 

Judge  SPALDING  wished  the  gentleman  to 
consider,  before  he  ur^ed  such  a  motion,  that 
such  an  order  might  include  members  of  the 
bar. 

The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  :  "  What,  sir !  do 
you  mean  that  you  sanction  such  manifesta 
tions  ?  " 

Judge  SPALDING  :  "  I  do,  sir." 

The  DISTRICT- ATTORNEY  :  "Well,  sir,  you 
will  doubtless  have  an  opportunity  to  leave  with 
the  rest  then." 

Mr.  RIDDLE  :  "  The  Court  will  bear  me 
witness  that  I  have  not  provoked  any  disturb 
ance,  having  strictly  confined  my  address  to  the 
Court  and  the  Jury." 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


57 


The  COURT  :  "  Certainly,  sir."] 
Mr.  RIDDLE  resumed. 

And  if  then  the  chivalry  should  seek  out  so 
unimportant  an  individual  as  myself  for  such 
conduct  of  mine,  I  can  easily  be  found.  If  the 
Marshal  of  this  or  any  other  District  were  or 
dered  to  arrest  me,  it  would  only  be  necessary 
for  him  to  leave  word  at  my  office  or  my  house, 
and  I  should  instantly  wait  on  him.  Never  will 
I,  or  one  under  my  influence,  lift  a  finger  against 
the  regular  and  lawful  administration  of  the 
laws  of  my  country,  think  what  I  may  of  the 
justice  of  the  laws  themselves.  But  I  say  that 
no  Government  will  long  be  able  to  administer 
any  laws,  which  is  not  guided  by  those  eternal 
laws  of  Justice  which  alone  support  the  throne 
of  the  Almighty  himself.  And  all  this  time 
John  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Ishmaelites,  and  on 
his  way  to  slavery.  I  know  you  are  anxious  to 
see  the  rescuers  on  his  track  but  pardon  a  word 
or  two  more. 

Many  years  ago,  while  Ohio  was  in  the  wil 
derness,  there  went  another  Pilgrim  band  into 
the  woods  of  Lorain  county,  carrying  with  them 
the  principles,  but  not  the  intolerance,  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers.  Cutting  away  the  forests, 
draining  the  swamps,  and  with  sweat  and  toil 
subduing  a  savage  nature  to  the  wants  and 
wishes  of  a  refined  civilization.  There  in  rapid 
process  they  laid  the  foundation  of  a  school 
broadly  on  the  principles  of  the  Reformation, 
the  deep  throbbings  of  which,  as  wrought  out  in 
the  State,  had  produced  the  American  Revolu 
tion.  Dealing  in  no  dead  and  exfoliated  dog 
mas,  the  teachings  and  inculcations  of  that 
school  have  been  fully  responsive  to  the  hun 
gry  and  naked  needs  and  wants  of  our  day,  and 
of  our  country.  Spite  of  early  prejudice,  mis 
representation,  and  a  ribald  intolerance,  the 
claims  of  Oberlin  are  finally  being  recognized 
and  acknowledged.  From  her  teaching  has 
gone  forth  an  influence  for  good,  and  for  good 
alone.  From  her  class-rooms  and  recitations 
have  gone  forth  strong,  pure,  earnest  souled 
men  and  women,  through  all  the  ways  of  life, 
and  a  towering  up  of  moral  and  political  senti 
ment  is  already  perceptible  in  the  land. 

In  the  fierce  struggle  through  which  our 
nation  is  passing,  her  professors  have  stood  ir 
the  front,  striking  with  us  blow  for  blow  for 
freedom.  Already  have  we  beaten  a  new  win 
dow  into  the  blind,  dark  side  of  our  politics 
through  which  we  catch  glimpses  of  the  old  Je 
rusalem  of  our  fathers,  and  feel  the  air  wafted 
to  us  from  the  plains  of  our  first  pilgrimage 
Walled  out  from  the  heathen  of  the  South  by 
a  power  more  relentless  than  the  combinet 
horrors  of  climate  and  the  barbarism  of  a  thou 
sand  ages,  Oberlin  has  established  her  missions 
in  the  older  and  more  teachable  barbarous  Af 
rica,  where  her  missionaries  have  illustratec 
with  their  deaths,  the  lives  of  mercy  and  devo 
tion  with  which  they  enforced  their  ministry 
while  living. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  Oberlin  leaders  are,  es- 


)ccially,  champions  of  the  negro  race,  over  and 
,bove,  or  distinct  from  the  white,  or  any  other 
ace.  But  it  is  true  that  at  all  hazards  they 
will  vindicate  man's  manhood,  and  woman's 
vomanhood,  no  matter  what  complexion  the 
all  Wise  One  has  stamped  upon  its  outside. 
And  if  the  abused  of  the  black  race  seek  that 
ocality,  it  is  because  nowhere  else  is  found  a 
community  that  so  practically  recognizes  the 
right  of  the  Creator  to  fashion  his  creatures  as 
seems  good,  without  making  that  diversity  sC 
jretext  to  abase  them,  and  this  Christian  ele 
ment  there  produces  its  true  result,  a  moral 
and  intellectual  elevation  of  this  cast-off  race, 
ind  a  practical,  absolute  prohibition  of  the  mon 
strous  mixing  of  races,  so  necessarily  the  fruit 
of  the  degradation  of  the  negro.  Nor  is  it  true 
hat  these  people  have  any  connection  with  any 
means  or  appliances  to  induce  enslaved  negroes 
o  escape.  They  employ  no  agents,  establish 
no  missions,  and  furnish  no  funds  for  labor  in 
such  enterprises.  And  the  presence  of  Prof. 
Peck  in  Kentucky,  would  be  the  signal  of  no 
servile  insurrection  —  at  any  rate  among  the 
blacks  —  and  would  be  followed  by  no  unusual 
escapades.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  flee 
ing,  the  hunted,  and  the  oppressed,  do  there 
find  all  the  beautiful  charities  of  benignant 
Christianity  awaiting  them  with  beckoning 
hands. 

Situated  as  Oberlin  is,  hundreds  of  miles  from 
the  slave  communities,  if  a  single  ray  of  her 
light,  traversing  the  land  of  freedom,  has  reached 
and  penetrated  the  hovels  of  slavery,  lighting 
up  an  avenue  and  a  hope  in  the  bosom  of  the 
abject  bondmen,  that  which  is  charged  upon  her 
as  her  crime,  is  her  chiefest  crown ! 

Nor  is  it  true  that  Oberlin  —  her  professors, 
students,  and  people  —  are  the  disciplined  and 
armed  horde  here  represented,  turning  her  Col 
leges  into  fortresses  against  the  Government  and 
laws  of  the  country.  The  transactions  of  the 
13th  of  September,  and  the  few  days  preced 
ing,  are  an  everlasting  refutation  of  this  idle 
tale.  They  show  that,  unfortunately,  they  had 
no  leaders,  no  soldiers,  no  arms,  no  signals,  no 
rendezvous,  so  that  "  when  the  drum  beats  at 
the  dead  of  night,"  an  armed  host  would  spring 
in  martial  array  to  meet  an  invading  gang  of 
slave-hunters. 

When  the  kidnappers  invaded  the  home  of 
the  Wagoners,  and  the  cry  of  murder  rung  out 
on  the  startled  ear  of  midnight,  it  created  un 
wonted  alarm,  but  no  signal-gun  boomed  on  the 
night  air.  The  presence  of  these  foreign  ruf 
fians,  from  that  night  to  the  capture  of  John, 
though  known,  and  their  mission  suspected, 
failed  to  suggest  any  organization,  or  prompt 
any  means  whatever  for  the  safety  of  a  single 
individual.  And  when  on  the  return  of  Bar 
tholomew  and  Lyman,  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
13th,  a  cry  that  John  had  been  kidnapped,  and 
was  then  being  rapidly  hurried  away,  was 
sounded  through  that  peaceful  village,  it  struck 
that  quiet  populace,  all  unused  to  arms,  strife, 
8 


58 


HISTORY    OF  THE 


and  turmoil,  with  surprise,  alarm,  and  intense 
indignation,  as  I  trust  it  would  strike  the  peo 
ple  of  any  free  town  in  the  Union.  No  lead 
ers  came  forth,  no  rudiment  of  an  organization 
was  apparent;  but  hurryings  and  runnings  to 
and  fro,  anxious  questions,  excited  answers, 
hasty  consultations,  heat,  excitement,  and  univer 
sal  confusion,  all  mixed  and  mingled,  prevailed. 

The  outline  of  all  that  is  now  known  of  that 
wretched  foray,  was,  in  a  few  moments,  known 
to  the  people  of  Oberlin.  That  John  Price, 
for  years  a  resident  there,  whom  they  supposed 
—  and  by  the  laws  of  Ohio  had  a  right  to  sup 
pose —  was  a  freeman,  had,  by  a  lying  artifice, 
been  decoyed  from  their  midst,  surrounded  by 
a  gang  of  Southern  ruffians,  and  hurried  off. 
And  to  this  was  added  the  old  stock  of  feverish 
excitement  that  had  kept  the  atmosphere  in  a 
glimmer  since  the  outrage  on  the  wagons. 
And  so  from  their  shops,  their  stores,  their 
fields,  their  recitation-rooms,  and  their  profes 
sors'  chairs,  they  ran  together  for  an  instant 
consultation,  followed  by  instantaneous  action. 
It  was  supposed  the  gang  with  John  would 
await  the  cars  at  Wellington,  where  he  must  be 
intercepted,  and  freed  from  the  grasp  of  the 
kidnappers. 

Then  how  do  they  go  off?  Scrambling  into 
farm  wagons,  livery  carriages,  stages,  private 
buggies,  on  foot,  two  by  two,  in  companies  of 
half  a  dozen  or  a  dozen,  just  as  each  one  can. 
Nothing  that  has  the  semblance  of  concert  of 
action  is  apparent.  Some  go  out  of  curiosity, 
some  to  "  see  the  fun,"  and  some  led  by  the 
holiest  promptings  of  a  human  heart  "  to  de 
liver  the  oppressed  and  him  that  hath  no  help 
er."  Nothing  could  be  made  plainer  by  evi 
dence  than  this  character  of  this  crowd  has  been. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  defendant  was  seen 
conversing  with  two  men  in  a  buggy,  and  that 
he  said  to  one  of  them  that  he  had  no  business 
in  there  without  a  gun.  It  is  further  said  that 
he  was  found  making  arrangements  for  a  buggy, 
and  was  heard  to  say  that  he  thought  he  knew 
where  he  could  get  a  gun.  It  does  not  appear 
where  he  wished  to  go,  .or  for  what  purpose  he 
wished  a  gun.  But  concede  that  he  wished  to 
go  to  Wellington,  and  wanted  a  gun  to  use  in 
rescuing  John.  The  question  then  is,  under 
what  impression  did  the  defendant  act  ?  Why, 
according  to  the  testimony,  it  must  have  been 
under  the  impression  that  John,  being  a  free 
man,  had  been  unlawfully  seized  and  spirited 
away.  For  ho  was  bound  to  presume  him  to 
be  free  until  he  was  proven  to  be  a  slave,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  any  information  ever 
reached  the  defendant  that  would  so  much  as 
lead  him  to  suppose  that  John  was  a  fugitive. 
What  then  ?  Why,  if  John,  being  a  free  man, 
had  been  thus  summarily  seized  and  hurried 
away,  he  had  a  right  to  rescue  himself  and  had 
a  claim  on  all  the  good  people  of  Ohio  for  assist 
ance  in  so  doing,  he  and  they  using  just  so  much 
force  as,  and  no  more  than,  was  necessary  to 
effect  a  rescue. 


And  suppose,  then,  that  the  testimony  of  the 
immaculate  Bartholomew  is  not  an  error.  Sup 
pose  that — as  they  all  swear  positively  they  were 
not  —  Peck,  Plumb,  and  Fitch  were  together  on 
the  stoop  of  Fitch's  store,  and  the  defendant 
came  up  and  asked  if  "  they  had  got  John," 
and  one  of  them  said  "  yes ; "  and  then  he  asked 
what  was  best  to  be  done  about  it ;  and  one  of 
them  said,  "  Go  and  get  'em  ready,  and  we  '11 
come  and  tell  you,"  and  so  he  went  to  "get 
'em  ready ;" — what  then  ?  Nothing  is  proved 
under  the  sun  against  any  living  man.  Good 
heavens  !  Is  it  indeed  so  that  there  is  such  a 
sacredness  in  this  especial  institution  of  man- 
stealing,  that  when  its  minions  are  abroad  upon 
their  mission,  a  dozen  decent  men  cannot  assem 
ble  and  talk  about  the  occurrences  in  their 
midst,  without  every  thing  they  may  say  being 
noted  down  and  brought  into  this  dignified 
Court,  to  implicate  the  group  as  violators  of  the 
Constitution  and  traitors  to  the  Government  ? 

But  is  it  true  that  such  a  conversation  was 
held  ?  It  matters  nothing  to  the  case  at  issue. 
But  as  a  question  of  fact,  and  as  a  test  of  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Government's  witness,  is  it 
true  ?  Bartholomew  gives  a  minute  detail  of 
the  group,  the  circumstances,  and  the  conversa 
tion.  In  rapid  succession,  Prof.  Peck,  Mr. 
Plumb,  and  Mr.  Fitch  come  upon  the  stand,  and 
swear  with  the  utmost  positiveness  that  no  such 
group,  conversation,  or  circumstances  ever  ex 
isted.  And  then  the  Mayor,  Ex-Mayor,  and 
most  prominent  merchants  and  business  men  of 
the  village  testify  that  they  have  known  Bar 
tholomew"  from  early  boyhood,  that  he  was  a 
known  thief  and  acknowledged  liar,  and  not 
one  tenth  of  the  people  of  Oberlin  would  believe 
him  under  any  circumstances,  although  Wack 
and  the  rest  of  his  set  in  a  way  sustain  him. 

But  I  am  entirely  willing  to  place  my  client 
upon  the  issue  made,  granting  that  every  word 
of  Bartholomew's  testimony  is  true. 

Nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  the  de 
fendant  was  not  prominent  in  the  crowd,  and 
that  he  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  first  party 
who  left  Oberlin.  There  is  no  indication  of 
any  rash  words  or  actions.  When  he  left  Ober 
lin,  no  intelligence  had  yet  been  received  as  to 
the  whereabouts  of  the  kidnappers.  He  did 
not  know  that  they  were  at  Wellington,  that 
they  did  or  did  not  mean  to  take  the  cars,  or 
that  they  might  not  pursue  their  journey  in  a 
land  carriage,  that  the  negro  had  not  been  al 
ready  rescued,  or  any  thing  of  the  sort.  He 
could  not  therefore  have  set  out  with  any  very 
definite  purpose. 

It  is  conceded  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
that  it  is  essential  to  prove  that  this  defendant 
had  knowledge  of  the  relation  which  John  sus 
tained  to  the  individuals  who  had  him  in  custo 
dy,  and  that,  knowing  that  they  held  John  in 
legal  custody,  he,  with  others,  forcibly  wrested 
him  from  such  custody.  This  guilty  knowledge 
alone  can  impart  to  the  transaction  that  bad  in 
tent  without  which  no  crime  can  exist.  So  that 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


59 


the  felonious  intent,  as  we  would  apply  the  term 
in  speaking  of  felonies,  lurks  under  that  expres 
sion  of  "knowingly"  doing  the  act  which  forms 
the  charge  in  the  indictment.  Ordinarily,  no 
man  can  be  guilty  of  a  crime  who  is  at  the  time 
unconscious  of  committing  it.  And  if  a  party, 
in  the  pursuit  of  what  is  in  itself  lawful,  unin 
tentionally  performs  a  thing  which,  if  done  in 
tentionally,  would  amount  to  a  crime  ;  of  course, 
as  there  was  no  felonious  intent,  guilt  is  totally 
wanting. 

One  thing  is  a  little  singular  about  the  man 
ner  of  this  prosecution.  The  crime  charged 
here  ranks  in  the  statute  under  the  mild  name 
of  a  misdemeanor ;  but  if  one  might  trust  to  the 
copious  and  strong  language  which  was  made 
use  of  by  the  gentleman  who  spoke  yesterday 
for  the  Prosecution,  it  is  something  worse  than 
a  felony,  and  can  be  denominated  nothing  less 
than  heinous,  —  a  crime  to  be  punished  without 
benefit  of  clergy,  in  the  popular  or  legal  sense. 

Now  the  people  of  Oberlin,  with  whom  this 
defendant  acted,  if  at  all,  are  a  highly  cultivated 
people,  and  have  the  nicest  appreciation  of  the 
obligations  and  sanctions  of  law.  Among  them 
you  find  the  strongest,  the  extremest  respect  for 
law  held  and  inculcated.  But  if  this  were  for 
gotten,  it  would  indeed  seem  not  a  little  strange 
that  these  men,  in  the  commission  of  a  crime, 
should  not  have  gone  about  it  in  such  a  way  as 
to  impart  to  it  at  least  one  of  the  characteristics 
which  ordinarily  mark  a  crime.  Criminals  do 
not  ordinarily  choose  the  broad  daylight  and  the 
presence  of  a  thousand  witnesses  for  the  com 
mission  of  a  felony.  Why,  they  had  those  par 
ties  besieged  there.  Every  mode  and  means  of 
exit  was  cut  olF.  Their  numbers  were  an  hun 
dred  to  one.  And  yet  what  did  they  do  ?  Why 

—  steady  the  tottering  Union  while  I  say  it !  — 
they  liberated,  without  even  an  attempt  at  vio 
lence,  a    KIDNAPPED    fellow-citizen!!     It 
seems  that  a  cry  had  been  sent  up  here  to  Cleve 
land  for  assistance.      And  it  almost  seems  as 
though  the  authorities  here  must  have  known 
that  this  arrest  was  a  flagitious  outrage,  and  not 
the  execution  of  a  lawful  process;   otherwise  I 
should  have  expected  that  some  portion  of  that 
" thousand"  who  on   some  fitting    occasion  — 
•which  God  and  all  good  men  conspire  to  put  off 

—  are  to  spring  forth  here  and  be  reviewed  by 
my  military  friend,  Mr.  District-Attorney,  Gen 
eral  of  the  Northern  District,  would  have  flown 
to  the  succor  of  their  besieged  brethren.     Now 
if  these  parties  had  gathered  at  Wellington  to 
rescue  the  man  from  competent  authority — why, 
gentlemen,  if  there  had  been  the  least  disposi 
tion  to  commit  so  grave  an  offence  as  to  call 
forth  an  animadversion  from  the  judiciary,  why 
did  they  not  wait  an  hour,  and  the  thing  would 
have  accomplished  itself,  and  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  my  astute  and  learned  friend  to 
have  made  out  a  single  case,  or  the  semblance 
of  a  case,  even  before  the  Grand  Jury. 

But  what  did  happen  ? 

Mr.  Lowe  and  posse  arrived  at  Wellington 


and  took  shelter  and  refreshment  at  the  Wads- 
worth  House.  There  had  been,  it  seems,  a 
large  fire  the  same  morning,  which  had  at 
tracted  a  great  crowd,  its  exact  size  being 
variously  estimated  from  two  hundred  to  five 
hundred  persons.  Now  the  peculiar  nature 
and  extent  of  the  excitement  of  a  large  crowd 
at  a  fire  are  perhaps  as  well  known  and  under 
stood  in  this  city  as  in  most  populated  regions. 
All  the  stirring  emotions  which  go  to  make  us 
excited  humanely,  are  stimulated,  and  drawn 
out  to  their  fullest  extent.  And  if  it  were  not 
a  very  extraordinary  fire,  some  of  the  excited 
supported  their  flagging  energies  at  the  ex 
pense  of  a  possible  temperance  pledge.  And 
so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  testimony,  if 
we  include  all  who  have  in  any  way  been 
named  or  referred  to,  the  whole  number  who 
went  from  Oberlin  to  Wellington  will  fall 
within  a  score.  The  crowd  was  gathered  in 
the  forenoon  by  the  fire.  Nothing  is  plainer. 
And  beside  the  large  numbers  still  in  the 
streets  when  the  parties  from  Oberlin  arrived, 
something  like  an  hundred  it  is  said  were  in 
the  Town-House,  attending  the  little  trial 
there.  A  gentleman  comes  into  this  town-hall 
—  so  well  satisfied  that  there  had  been  an 
infraction  of  the  laws  of  Ohio,  that  he  goes 
forward  and  makes  oath  to  such  belief.  And 
if  he  had  knowledge  of  the  facts  as  they  have 
been  testified  to  here  by  Jennings  and  Mitchell, 
he  certainly  was  abundantly  authorized  to 
make  such  an  oath.  And  it  was  upon  such 
information,  gentlemen,  that  that  crowd  acted. 
For  at  this  time  there  is  not  the  remotest 
particle  of  evidence  that  there  had  been  any 
communication  between  these  Southern  gentle 
men  and  any  part  of  the  crowd  outside ;  this 
old  crowd,  the  crowd  that  had  assembled  at  the 
fire,  and  had  had  their  feelings  heated  and 
excited  and  overwrought  to  the  last  extreme, 
by  witnessing  a  fearfully  destructive  fire.  There 
had  been  no  advertisement  at  this  time  of  the 
details  of  the  kidnapping  except  as  they  ad 
vertised  themselves,  and  were  stated  under 
oath  by  the  gentleman  who  swore  out  the 
warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  kidnappers.  And 
the  crowd  arriving  from  Oberlin  bring  with 
them  and  find  this  solitary  impression  preva 
lent  there,  and  act  upon  it. 

They  beleaguer  the  hotel,  so  that  the  South 
ern  gentlemen  themselves  come  to  be  advised 
that  the  natural  consequences  of  their  conduct 
are  impending  over  them.  And  now  what  do 
they  do  ?  Do  they  attempt  to  make  known  to 
the  crowd  that  they  (the  crowd)  are  laboring 
under  a  misapprehension,  and  that  the  man  is 
lawfully  holden?  Not  a  word  of  it.  They 
had  taken  him  with  a  strong  hand,  and  so  they 
meant  to  hold  him.  Not  a  single  effort  to 
exhibit  authority,  remove  an  impression,  or 
explain  a  circumstance.  These  men,  not  ac 
customed  to  violations  of  law  and  to  bloodshed, 
not  accustomed  to  arms,  amenable,  delicately 
amenable  to  every  thing  that  has  the  show  of 


60 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


authority,  present  no  uninviting  audience  for 
such  a  representation  of  the  legal  status  of  the 
case.  So  far  from  attempting  explanations 
ere  the  crowd  was  more  excited,  they  take 
John,  and  tinker  him  up,  and  stuff  him  with  a 
story,  and  put  him  forth  to  tell  that  tale  to  the 
crowd  !  Instead  of  this  man  Lowe  —  beg 
pardon,  United  States  Deputy-Marshal  Lowe, 
—  or  Jennings,  or  Mitchell,  or  Davis,  or  all 
four  of  them  together,  going  out  and  proclaim 
ing  their  legal  authority,  they  take  this  mis 
erable  John,  fill  him  with  a  miserable  lie,  and 
shove  him  forth  to  tell  it.  How  sublime !  the 
Chivalry,  and  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States  pick  up  this  miserable  negro,  and  make 
him  their  orator!  make  him  their  mouth-piece 
connection  between  themselves  and  this  ex 
cited  and  infuriated  crowd!  And  when  this 
scheme  fails  they  all  creep  up  into  the  little 
squat  room  away  in  the  garret,  and  tie  a  rope 
to  the  latch  —  since  the  door  unfortunately 
opens  out — and  the  redoubtable  General  Jen 
nings,  takes  hold  of  the  rope's  end,  and  getting 
round  into  a  corner  where  he  may  be  reason 
ably  safe  in  case  a  deadly  attack  is  made  — 
holds  on ! 

Oh,  that  boy  could  tell  just  exactly  such  a 
kind  of  story  as  they  wanted  him  to  tell,  when 
alone  with  gentlemen  occupying  that  "high 
Southern  ground,"  which  always  means  the 
latitude  of  the  revolver  and  "  tooth-pick."  But 
when  he  came  to  be  an  oracle  to  the  crowd, 
standing  almost  as  near  to  it  as  to  his  kidnap 
pers,  the  stimulus  was  not  strong  enough,  and 
he  made  an  utter  failure ;  and  the  only  thing 
they  offer  the  justly  excited  crowd  is  this  utter 
failure  of  John's  to  repeat,  as  bidden,  that  mis 
erable,  trumped  up,  lying  tale. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  now,  Gentlemen, 
to  what  did  transpire  on  that  marvellous  plat 
form  —  beside  which  all  the  platforms  that  I 
have  yet  been  so  fortunate  as  to  learn  something 
of  are  thrown  far  into  the  shade.  First,  let  us 
hear  Jennings  : 

"  John  went  out  on  to  the  platform.  Con 
cluded  to  let  him  go  out.  I  went  out  with  him. 
Two  or  three  rifles  were  put  up  to  the  nigger, 
and  skeered  him,  and  he  went  back,  and  didn't 
say  what  he  was  going  to." 

Mr.  Mitchell.  "John  was  taken  out  on  to 
the  platform,  and  said  to  the  crowd  that  his 
master  had  sent  for  him,  and  he  was  going 
home.  They  had  got  papers  for  him,  and  were 
going  to  take  him  home." 

Mr.  Wood.  "  When  John  was  first  brought 
out  on  to  the  platform,  the  Southerners  said  if 
anybody  wanted  to  ask  John  if  he  wanted  to 
go  home,  they  might.  I  asked  him  if  he  wanted 
to  go  back.  HeT  answered  that  they  had  got 
papers  for  him,  and  he  supposed  he  would  have 
to  go.  Don't  know  as  he  said  any  thing  more." 

Mr.  Wack.  "  Davis  brought  John  out  on  to 
the  platform.  Did  not  see  Jennings  there. 
Davis  said  he  had  brought  the  boy  out  to  tell 
his  own  story  for  himself.  John  began  to 


speak.  He  did  not  exactly  say  he  wanted  to 
go  back.  Said  he  was  in  the  hands  of  the  offi 
cers,  and  might  as  well  go  back.  Was  inter 
rupted  by  the  crowd.  I  think  he  was  just  going 
to  say  he  wanted  to  go  back,  when  the  crowd 
interrupted  him ! " 

Jennings  says  he  did  n't  say  any  thing.  Mitch- 
essays  he  said  one  thing;  Wood  says  he  said 
quite  a  different  thing,  and  did  n't  say  any  thing 
else;  and  then  Mr.  Wack,  who  is  entitled  to 
great  consideration  on  several  accounts,  says  he 
didn't  exactly  say  he  wanted  to  go  back,  but 
thinks  he  was  just  going  to  say  so,  and  would 
have  done  it  if  the  uncivil  crowd  had  n't  been 
so  rude  as  to  interrupt  him  ! 

Who  will  tell  us,  then,  what  John  did  say, 
or  whether  he  said  any  thing  ? 

Jennings  says  he  himself  was  out  there,  but 
Wack  swears  positively  that  he  did  n't  see  him 
there.  Now,  gentlemen,  could  Jennings  have 
been  on  that  stoop,  and  not  be  seen !  [Much 
laughter.]  Why,  you  could  see  him  all  the 
way  to  Pike's  Peak !  and  if  Wack  says  he 
did  n't  see  him,  that  is  certainly  conclusive  that 
he  was  not  there. 

This  remarkable  disagreement  of  the  Gov 
ernment's  leading  witnesses  on  so  important  a 
point,  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration ;  and 
it  would  indeed  be  well  for  the  prosecution  if 
there  were  not  many  other  equally  grave  dif 
ferences  between  their  witnesses.  The  witness, 
Jake  Wheeler,  differs  from  others  in  several 
very  important  particulars. 

This  transaction  must  have  been  near  the 
time  when  the  train  was  expected  from  Cleve 
land.  And  what  next  ?  About  this  time  they 
sent  for  the  magistrates  and  lawyer.  For  it 
would  really  seem  that  this  was  the  first  time 
that  any  honorable  effort  was  made  to  give  any 
information  or  to  make  any  impression  on  the 
crowd.  Lowe,  afraid  to  face  that  justly  incensed 
and  outraged  crowd,  upon  whom  he  had  tried 
to  play  off  that  miserable  lie,  took  some,  whom 
he  supposed  to  be  influential  men,  into  a  private 
room,  and  tried  to  pursuade  them  to  interfere 
Vor  him  with  the  excited  throng  outside.  It  is 
said  that  when  you  show  a  combination  on  the 
part  of  any  number  of  individuals  —  so  say  the 
rules  —  whatever  is  shown  to  be  the  words  or 
acts  of  any  one  of  the  party,  is  chargeable  upon 
all.  But  it  is  altogether  essential  to  show  first 
that  there  is  a  combination ;  the  very  opposite  of 
which — if  the  entire  evidence  may  be  trusted 
—  was  true  in  the  case  of  this  collection.  The 
entire  crowd,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  un 
important  minority,  was  called  together  solely 
by  thefire  ;  and,  the  minority  excepted,  hurried 
ly  gathered  in  from  all  quarters,  strangers  to 
each  other,  moved  only  by  spontaneous  sympa 
thy  with  the  kidnapped  or  the  kidnappers,  as 
their  hearts  or  politics  dictated,  without  so  much 
as  speaking  together,  each  with  his  individual 
purposes,  views,  and  opinions,  all  agreeing  to 
differ,  perhaps,  but  agreeing  in  nothing  else. 
The  proof  is,  there  were  no  leaders  or  followers, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


61 


no  organization,  concert,  or  combination.  And 
certainly  it  does  not  follow  that  because  a  man 
happens  to  be  in  SUCH  a  crowd,  that  he  is  charge 
able  with  all  the  acts  of  all  the  people  who  con 
stitute  it  Until  you  prove  the  combination, 
each  man  is  responsible  for  just  what  he  him 
self  actually  says  and  does,  and  by  no  possibility 
for  any  thing  more.  That  is  the  rule  ;  for  it  is 
the  only  rule  which  could  work  any  thing  else 
than  the  extremest  confusion,  mischief,  and  in 
justice.  But  what  does  Lowe  do  ?  Why,  he 
shows  his  warrant  to  some  of  these  principal 
men,  not  one  of  whom  is  charged  with,  or 
could  be  charged  with,  having  any  thing  what 
ever  to  do  with  the  taking  away  of  the  negro  ! 
Mark  it  well.  Lowe,  not  Jennings,  comes  for 
ward  to  meet  the  men  sent  for  by  the  party. 
He  takes  them  into  a  room  alone,  away  from 
Jennings  and  the  rest  He  tells  them  solemnly 
that  he  is  the  U.  S.  Marshal,  and  that  he,  being  so 
august  an  officer,  holds  this  negro  boy  in  his  cus 
tody,  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  issued  by  a  United 
States  Commissioner,  at  Columbus,  which  lie 
then  condescends  to  exhibit  for  the  first  time  for 
their  inspection.  They  read  it  carefully,  note 
the  lack  of  a  seal,  express  no  opinion  upon  the 
merits  of  the  case,  and  go  down.  The  crowd, 
eager  for  information,  ask  what  they  have 
learned,  and  are  truthfully  told :  that  a  man 
calling  himself  U.  S.  Marshal  Lowe,  of  Colum 
bus,  claims  to  hold  the  negro  in  his  custody  by 
virtue  of  a  warrant  shown  them,  which  pur 
ports  to  have  been  made  and  issued  by  a  U.  S. 
Commissioner,  at  Columbus,  before  whom  the 
boy,  when  returned  by  the  Marshal,  is  to  be 
tried.  This  warrant  has  no  seal,  which  the 
lawyer  speaks  of  as  a  remarkable  circumstance, 
and  says  he  cannot  tell  whether,  on  such  war 
rants,  a  seal  is  necessary.  Not  one  of  these  men 
indorses  the  papers  as  sufficient.  Not  more  than 
one  claims  to  have  seen  a  power  of  attorney, 
and  he  did  not  read  it  The  WARRANT  was 
put  forward  in  EVERY  CASE  as  the  paper  under 
and  by  virtue  of  which  the  boy  is  held  by  this 
U.  S.  Marshal.  A  warrant  which  the  Prosecu 
tion  knew  so  well  was  utterly  worthless  that 
they  dare  not  produce,  and  have  not  mentioned 
in  this  whole  trial ;  but  come  and  try  by  the 
oaths  of  these  two  scavengers  of  slavery,  to 
overswear  and  impeach  these  dozen  intelligent, 
educated,  and  utterly  disinterested  free  citizens 
of  Ohio,  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  alleged 
rescue,  and  were  in  the  crowd  only  to  make 
peace  if  possible  between  the  kidnappers  and 
the  justly  excited  populace,  and  who  swear  to 
the  facts  as  they  exist  But  Lowe  finally  comes 
down,  under  the  protection  of  Mr.  Patton  and 
Constable  Meacham.  Does  he  go  out  like  a 
man  upon  the  balcony  where  John  stood,  and 
frankly  stand  there,  where  all  could  see  if  they 
couid  not  all  hear  him  V  Of  course  not  But 
he  sneaks  out  of  the  back  door,  seeks  a  retired 
place,  draws  out  a  warrant  which  he  cannot 
read,  and  must  get  his  Oberlin  protector  to  read 
for  him,  to  the  small  portion  of  the  people  who 


can  get  within  seeing  or  hearing  distance,  and 
while  this  ridiculous'little  side  show  is  going  on, 
the  mass  of  the  crowd,  who  know  nothing  of  it, 
and  act  under  their  first  knowledge  and  be 
lief,  make  a  rush  upon  the  beleaguered  castle, 
take  it  by  storm,  and  carry  the  boy  off.  And 
as  an  everlasting  commentary  upon  that  whole 
proceeding,  and  as  showing  its  falsity  and  bad 
faith,  the  Government  now  repudiate  Lowe,  his 
warrant  and  authority,  —  say  that  was  all  a 
sham,  and  John  was  actually  holden  by  Jen 
nings,  under  his  power  of  attorney,  all  the  time  ! 
Now  it  is  altogether  too  late  to  talk  about  notice 
after  this,  to  the  defendant  or  anybody  else. 

The  defendant  Bushnell,  during  all  this  time, 
is  not  there.  He  has  learned  nothing,  seen 
nothing,  heard  nothing  of  any  show  of  author 
ity,  not  even  of  the  warrant.  And  the  crowd 
is  not  one  acting  in  concert,  combination,  or  with 
any  common  understanding,  however  vague. 

WHERE,   THEN,  is    THE   PROOF   that   he 
"KNOWINGLY,"  —  knowing  that  John  was  a 
slave ;  the  slave  of  John  G.  Bacon,  of  Mason 
County,  Kentucky;   that  he  was  lawfully  ar-. 
rested  by  Anderson  Jennings,  the  legally  con-  : 
stituted  agent  of  John  G.  Bacon,  and  lawfully  • 
held  by  said  Jennings  under  and  by  virtue  of  a 
legally  executed  power  of  attorney,  —  and  hav-  ^ 
ing  such  knowledge,  "FELONIOUSLY"  assisted 
in  rescuing  said  John  from  such  legal  custody, 
"  contrary  to  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  United 
States  of  America  V  " 

Of  ALL  such  guilty  knowledge,  without 
which,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  his  Honor  will 
charge  you  there  can  be  no  crime  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law,  there  is  the  most  utter  and  absolute 
lack  of  proof.  And  it  is  further  worthy  of  your 
especial  notice,  that  not  only  does  it  appear 
that  there  was  no  sort  of  concert  in  the  action 
of  this  crowd  as  a  whole,  but  that  this  defend 
ant  is  not  known  to  have  acted  in  concert  with 
any  single  individual.  And  yet  the  Prosecu 
tion  claim  to  you  that  he  can  be  held  charge 
able  with  notice  served  in  a  private  room  in  the 
third  story  of  a  building  which  he  did  not  enter, 
upon  persons  who  had  no  sort  of  connection 
with  the  Rescue,  of  a  warrant  which  the  Prose 
cution  dare  not  name  in  this  Court,  by  an  offi 
cer  whom  they  dare  no  sooner  name,  and  that 
such  notice,  so  charged,  makes  this  defendant 
guilty  of  the  crime  alleged  in  the  indictment, 
to  wit,  the  knowing  and  felonious  rescue  of 
this  boy  John  from  the  legal  custody  of  Ander 
son  Jennings  !  And  that,  too,  when  they  now 
declare  that  John  was  not  holden  by  that  war 
rant  at  all ! 

Can  you,  then,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  look 
ing  through  this  case  as  we  have  reviewed  it, 
by  the  indulgence  of  the  Court,  and  with  your 
remarkably  kind  attention,  find  that  any  John, 
the  property  of  John  G.  Bacon,  was  any  more 
than  one  sixth  his  property  ?  Is  there  proof 
that  he  escaped,  —  that  the  power  of  attorney 
was  properly  executed,  —  that  the  boy  who  left 
Kentucky  at  eighteen  years  of  age,  five  feet 


62 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


eight  or  ten  inches  high,  •weighing  160  to  175 
pounds,  and  of  a  copper  colored  complexion, 
was,  the  boy  arrested  at  Oberlin  nearly  three 
years  afterward,  five  feet  five  inches  high  or 
less,  weighing  135  or  140  pounds,  and  so  black 
as  to  shine, — that  he  was  arrested  by  Ander 
son  Jennings  in  person,  or  by  his  posse  in  his 
immediate  presence,  —  that  U.  S.  Deputy  Mar 
shal  Lowe  set  up  no  claim  to  official  authority 
or  conduct,  acting  only  as  the  humble  servant 
of  the  overshadowing  Jennings,  —  that  the 
crowd  at  Wellington  was  a  crowd  gathered  by 
mutual  understanding  and  previous  agreement 
or  subsequent  assent,  acting  in  concert  and 
obeying  leaders,  —  and  that  after  due  and  suffi 
cient  notice  upon  this  concerted  crowd,  or  else 
upon  this  defendant  personally,  that  Anderson 
Jennings,  the  legally  constituted  attorney  of 
John  G.  Bacon,  had  lawfully  arrested  and  was 
then  lawfully  holding  the  veritable  negro  boy 
John  named  in  his  power  of  attorney,  —  this 
defendant,  in  defiance  of  the  laws,  the  peace, 
and  the  dignity  of  the  United  States,  helped  to 
rescue  the  said  negro  boy  John,  from  the  cus 
tody  of  the  said  Anderson  Jennings  ?  It  seems 
to  me,  Gentlemen,  that  to  so  plain  a  question 
you  cannot  be  long  in  returning  the  only  an 
swer  consistent  with  your  oaths,  or,  as  I  doubt 
not,  your  wishes. 

I  know  well  that  there  are  other  questions 
connected  with  this  case,  such  as  are  ever 
springing  from  that  most  perplexing  fountain  of 
difficulties,  which,  ignore  as  we  will,  is  forever 
pressing  itself  upon  our  attention.  But,  Gen 
tlemen,  nothing  could  be  more  unnecessary  than 
for  me  to  remind  you  that  with  such  questions 
you  have  nothing  whatever  to  do ;  and  last  of 
all  would  we  be  to  press  them  upon  your  atten 
tion.  The  right  or  the  wrong  of  Human  Slav 
ery —  "  Sum  of  all  Villanies"  though  it  be  —  the 
constitutionality  or  the  unconstitutionality  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  upon  which  the  indict 
ment  before  you  is  based,  —  and,  last  and  least 
of  all,  political  differences  or  personal  or  local 
prejudices,  form  no  part  of  the  testimony  intro 
duced  in  your  hearing  by  either  the  Prosecution 
or  the  Defence.  You  have  been  here  to  listen 
to  testimony ;  the  Court  will  give  you  the  law  ; 
and  with  nothing  else  have  you  to  do,  whatever 
expectations  the  Government  may  have  of  you. 
And,  in  Heaven's  name  I  ask  you,  Gentle 
men,  is  it  not  enough  that  free  citizens  of  Ohio 
must  turn  baying  dogs  at  the  bidding  of  South 
ern  despots,  or  be  lashed  by  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  for  tardy  slaves — that  this  unutterably 
loathsome,  unconstitutional,  and  wicked  Act  of 
1850  must  be  obeyed?  Are  men  to  suffer  the 
infamy  of  its  pains  and  penalties,  on  unsatisfac 
tory  proofs,  and  merely  so  that  the  present  pow 
ers  can  say  to  their  keepers,  we  have  enforced 
the  statute  ?  -If  you  find  this  defendant  Guilty, 
it  will  be  upon  such  grounds  only.  The  testi 
mony  has  gone  to  the  great  Outside  thinking, 
reflecting  and  judging  world,  and  that  world  is 
no  loss  tnis  man's  jury  than  are  you;  and  it  is 


more,  for  it  will  pronounce  not  only  upon  his 
guilt,  but  upon  your  verdict,  upon  you  also,  and 
forever  hold  you  to  account  for  that  verdict,  if 
it  be  not  in  accordance  with  the  facts. 

Standing  here  in  this  presence  and  upon  these 
great  elements  of  right,  I  may  say  to  you,  as  a 
man  speaking  to  men  who  are  capable  of  rising 
to  the  serene  atmosphere  of  truth  and  justice, 
that  under  the  inequitable  burden  of  this  law 
there  is  no  oversweeping  evidence  that  binds 
ujxin  you  the  inexorable  necessity  of  subjecting 
this  defendant  to  its  weight.  I  fix  it  upon  your 
understanding  —  I  write  it  on  your  hearts  —  I 
sear  it  on  your  consciences  —  that  the  Govern 
ment  has  failed  to  meet  the  wicked  exactions 
of  its  wicked  statute  ;  and  you  may,  you  must, 
with  your  free  breath  syllabling  your  verdict, 
ive  relief  to  the  tortured  anxiety  with  which  a 
whole  people,  with  repressed  breathing,  look  to 
the  final  result. 

And  should  that  result  be  averse  to  justice,  I 
admonish  you  that  such  a  verdict  on  such  evi 
dence  will  sow  the  whole  North  with  Dragon's 
teeth  —  let  him  reap  who  may  ! 

The  tribunes  of  the  people  will  go  forth  to 
mould  and  direct  the  impressible  emotion  into 
action.  You  shall  hear  their  voices  ring  out  — 

Ho,  watchman  on  the  tower!  what  of  the  time!" 
And  the  answer  — 

"  Stern  silent  men  are  wheeling  into  line, 

Firm  paced  and  slow  a  hcrrid  front  they  form, 
Still  as  the  breeze,  yet  dreadful  as  the  storm, 
Low  murmuring  sounds  along  their  banners  fly, 
Freedom  or  death  the  watchword  and  reply."" 

Oh !  I  know  this  thing  is  here  held  as  law. 
That  the  decision  of  this'Court  is  to  add  another 
scale  to  that  great  scab,  that  deforms  and  de 
bauches  American  jurisprudence  —  that  must 
remain  till  the  increasing  vitality  of  the  body 
politic  shall  reclaim  our  jurisprudence  to  purity 
and  justice.  But  it  shall  never  be  recognized 
and  accepted  by  our  people  as  law  —  never  ! 
never ! ! 

Your  fetters  may  bind  our  limbs,  and  your 
prisons  may  hold  our  bodies,  for  a  day.  You 
may  lay  your  judicial  fingers  on  our  pulses  and 
command  them  to  cease  beating,  —  you  may 
attempt  to  roll  the  red  tide  back  on  the  heart 
and  adjudge  it  to  stand  still,  —  but  it  will  throb, 
and  beat,  and  bound  on.  Your  manacles  and 
dungeons  can  never  still  it.  Prison  it  in  the 
centre  of  the  rock-ribbed  earth,  and  it  will  beat 
on  — the  huge  mountains  cannot  crush  it  —  the 
deep  sea  cannot  quench  it  —  the  everlasting 
fires  cannot  consume  it,  but,  gathering  its  ac 
cumulated  energies,  the  solid  earth  shall  be 
driven  asunder,  that  God  may  be  vindicated  in 
man  ! 

I  have  sunk  the  lawyer,  —  I  have  sunk  the 
advocate,  that  I  might  stand  before  you  in  my 
unsullied  manhood,  and  appeal  to  you  as  men. 

I  have  forgotten  party  prejudices,  that  I 
might  remember  and  remind  you  of  issues  in- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


63 


volving  the  common  rights,  franchises,  and 
liberties  of  us  all,  as  citizens  of  a  great  free 
State. 

I  have  sunk  the  individual  interests  of  the 
Defendant,  that  I  might  appeal  to  you  to  pro 
tect  the  interest  of  all  living  things,  and  vindi 
cate  the  dignity  and  sovereignty  of  our  glorious 
commonwealth,  —  all  these  are  here  embodied 
in  the  person  of  this  Defendant.  And  if  this 
appeal  is  heard  in  vain,  let  the  consequences  fall 
where  they  belong. 

[The  argument  of  MR.  RIDDLE  began  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  afternoon  of  the  Seventh  Day, 
and  continued  till  near  the  close  of  the  Eighth. 
Jud^e  SPALDING  occupied  the  remainder  of 
the  Eighth  and  the  morning  of  the  Ninth.] 

Mr.  RIDDLE  was  followed  by  his  senior  as 
sociate,  Hon.  RUFUS  P.  SPALDING,  who 
said :  — 

May  it  please  your  Honor :  — 

It  is  now  something  near  forty  years  since  I 
took  upon  myself,  on  my  entrance  into  my  pro 
fessional  career,  a  solemn  obligation  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Since  -then,  often,  and  under  imposing  cir 
cumstances,  that  oath  has  been  renewed.  And 
never,  to  my  knowledge,  have  I  departed  one 
jot  or  one  tittle  from  the  responsibility  thus 
gravely  assumed. 

But  I  took  upon  myself  this  obligation,  as 
the  once  popular  President,  Andrew  Jackson, 
said  he  did,  promising  to  support  the  Constitu 
tion,  indeed,  but  always  reserving  the  right  to 
interpret  it  for  myself.  And  when  President 
Jackson  was  appealed  to  for  executive  aid  in  a 
contest  between  the  highest  Federal  Court  in 
the  nation,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  a  State, 
he  answered  promptly  and  like  a  true  man,  "  I 
have  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  but  not  according  to  its  interpre 
tation  by  the  Federal  Court,  and  in  this  in 
stance  believing  the  State  Court  to  be  right 
and  the  Federal  Court  to  be  wrong,  the  power 
committed  to  me  shall  be  used  in  behalf  of  the 
State  Court  and  the  right,  though  it  be  against 
the  Federal  Court  and  its  wrong" 

If  Andrew  Jackson  had  done  nothing  else  to 
insure  his  fame,  so  noble  and  patriotic  a  decla 
ration  would  render  his  name  illustrious  so  long 
as  our  country's  history  shall  be  read. 

I  stand  here  to-day  as  the  advocate  of  a  fel 
low-citizen  who  is  in  danger  of  losing  his  lib 
erty  ;  —  and  for  what  ? 

For  obeying  the  injunction  of  Jesus  Christ ! 
Nothing  else. 

"  Whatsoever  ye  would  men  should  do  unto 
you,"  etc. 

And  now,  forsooth,  under  the  genial  laws  of 
this  Republic,  he  stands  in  fear  of  the*peniten- 
tiary.  Aye,  I  say  the  penitentiary,  sir,  for  it  is 
not  the  least  of  the  odious  features  of  this  out 
rageous  law,  that  its  provisions  are  so  worded 
that  they  are  no  better  than  the  laws  of  that 
Roman  Emperor  who  hung  his  edicts  so  high 


that  no  one  could  read  their  penalties,  and  then 
taught  their  import  by  summary  vengeance 
upon  every  unconscious  transgressor. 

I  read  from  Section  9  of  the  Act  of  Septem 
ber  18th,  1850. 

"  Any  person  who  shall  knowingly  and  will 
ingly  obstruct,  hinder,  or  prevent  such  claimant, 
his  agent  or  attorney,  or  any  person  or  persons 
lawfully  assisting  him,  her,  or  them  from  arrest 
ing  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  either 
with  or  without  process  as  aforesaid,  or  shall 
rescue,  or  attempt  to  rescue,  such  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  from  the  custody  of  such  claim 
ant,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  or  other  per 
son  or  persons  lawfully  assisting  as  aforesaid, 
when  so  arrested,  pursuant  to  the  authority 
herein  given  and  declared ;  or  shall  aid,  abet, 
or  assist  such  person,  so  owing  service  or  labor 
as  aforesaid,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  escape 
from  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  or 
other  person  or  persons  legally  authorized  as 
aforesaid ;  or  shall  harbor  or  conceal  such  fugi 
tive  so  as  to  prevent  the  discovery  or  arrest  of 
such  person,  after  notice  or  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  such  person  was  a  fugitive  from  service 
or  labor  as  aforesaid,  shall,  for  either  of  said 
offences,  be  subject  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  one 
thousand  dollars,  and  imprisonment  not  exceed 
ing  six  months,  by  indictment  and  conviction 
before  the  District  Court,"  etc. 

I  have  read  the  acts  of  Congress  attentively, 
to  find  out  what  "  imprisonment "  meant.  I 
was  informed  by  the  Executive  of  our  own 
State  that  it  meant  the  penitentiary.  "  Notso," 
said  I.  But,  on  recurring  to  the  Statutes,  I 
found  that  all  the  offences  against  the  post- 
office  and  treasury,  even  the  most  flagrant, 
are  thus  worded,  and  the  District- Attorney  has 
informed  me,  this  morning,  that  it  lies  in  the 
breast  of  the  presiding  officer  of  this  Court,  on 
the  verdict  of  the  Jury,  to  decide  whether  the 
punishment  shall  be  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail,  or  in  "  the  penitentiary." 

Sir,  I  feel  deeply  the  responsibility  which 
rests  upon  me  on  this  occasion,  and  I  feel  as 
sensibly  my  own  weakness.  I  would  that  I  had 
power  to  bring  to  the  vindication  of  the  true 
History  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
more  ability  than  I  possess.  I  would  rescue  it 
from  the  infamy  cast  upon  it  by  the  prosecution 
in  this  case.  And  now,  sir,  before  I  enter  upon 
the  argument  which  lies  before  me,  I  wish  to 
be  indulged  in  a  remark  personal  to  myself.  I 
have  plead  in  all  the  Courts  of  our  country,  but 
nowhere  do  I  feel  so  fully  at  home  as  in  this 
hall.  Here  I  constantly  associate  with  friends 
and  acquaintances  whom  I  love  and  respect. 
And  here,  I  mean  always  to  guard  against 
"words  and  acts"  that  may  seem  disrespectful 
to  the  Court,  or  unkind  to  my  brethren  of  the 
bar.  But,  sir,  when  1  say  this,  I  must  say  also, 
that  my  temperament  is  a  mercurial  one,  and  I 
see  before  me  a  train  of  argument,  the  only  one 
to  be  pursued  in  this  case  productive  of  excite 
ment  in  an  unusual  degree.  I  commend  my- 


HIST  OK  Y  OF  THE 


self,  sir,  to  your  kind  indulgence,  trusting  that 
you  will  do  me  the  justice  to  believe,  that  I 
shall  willingly  be  guilty  of  no  discourtesy  or 
rudeness.  Whatever  may  seem  to  be  undue 
warmth  will,  I  hope,  be  overlooked  for  the  sake 
of  the  great  principles  to  be  discussed,  and  their 
practical  application  to  the  most  sacred  rights  of 
the  traverser  at  the  bar.  For  it  is  my  first  duty 
to  defend  those  rights  by  the  discussion  of  such 
principles  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  faithfully 
and  fully,  be  the  consequences  to  others  what 
they  may. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  — 

I  hear  it  intimated  that  every  individual  who 
speaks  against  this  indictment  or  approvingly 
of  the  acts  charged  in  this  indictment ;  every 
counsellor  who  is  called  to  the  defence  of  the 
accused,  must  belong  to  some  other  party  than 
to  the  old  Democratic  party,  because  none  other 
is  friendly  to  the  Federal  Government !  But, 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  know  a  part  of  your 
number  well  enough  to  know  that  you  cannot 
for  a  moment  favor  such  a  proposition.  Why, 
Gentlemen,  we  are  here  assembled  in  the  city  of 
Cleveland,  a  city  of  sixty  thousand  souls,  the 
pride  of  the  Western  Reserve,  where,  by  thirty 
thousand  majority,  the  electors  have  declared 
themselves  opposed  to  the  present  administration 
of  the  Federal  Government.  Are  these  men 
of  the  Western  Reserve  all  traitors  ?  I,  my 
self,  for  more  years  than  the  District- Attorney 
can  boast  of  having  lived,  was  a  Democrat,  and 
I  am  still  a  Democrat  after  the  fashion  of  Thom 
as  Jefferson.  But  I  cannot  do  homage  to  the 
Moloch  of  Slavery  by  yielding  obedience  to  this 
infamous  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

We  are  told  with  especial  and  significant  em 
phasis  that  this  defendant  is  from  the  town  of 
Oberlin,  where  all  fugitives  do  congregate,  and 
where  the  decrees  of  the  Federal  Court  are  set 
at  defiance.  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  are  you  to 
convict  Simeon  Bushnell  because  he  comes  from 
the  town  of  Oberlin,  where  peculiar  views  are 
held  on  moral  and  political  points;  granting 
that  these  views  are  peculiar,  which  I  shall 
presently  show  they  by  no  means  are  ? 

You  are  told  that  you  must  not  deal  in 
abstractions.  What  are  abstractions  ? 

The  doctrine  of  the  Higher  Law  is  said  to  be 
one  —  which  is  even  at  this  moment  met  by  the 
gentleman  who  represents  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  with  a  smile  of  derision,  such  as  is  often 
coupled  with  a  flippant  mention  of  the  phrase 
by  pot-house  politicians.  Let  me  illustrate  the 
abstract  nature  of  the  Higher  Law  dogma  a 
little.  When  Napoleon  the  Great  was  about 
to  enter  upon  his  Russian  Campaign,  his  uncle, 
the  Cardinal  Fesch,  tried  to  persuade  him  to 
desist,  saying,  "Man  proposes,  but  God  dis 
poses,"  Napoleon  blasphemously  replied,  "  Yes 
—  but  1  propose,  and  /  dispose ! "  He  marched 
to  the  battle-field,  and  in  a  very  few  months 
was  seen  fleeing  for  his  life,  dethroned,  dis 
graced,  and  worse  than  dead.  Thomas  Jeffer 


son,  the  Father  of  Democracy,  speaking  with 
reference  to  an  apprehended  insurrection  of 
the  slaves  at  the  South,  said  :  "  Indeed  I  trem 
ble  for  my  country  when  I  reflect  that  God  is 
just,  and  that  his  justice  cannot  sleep  for  ever. 
The  Almighty  lias  no  attribute  which  can  take 
sides  with  us  in  such  a  contest" 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  Judge  Bliss  may 
scout  the  Higher  Law,  Judge  Belden  may 
scout  the  Higher  Law ;  but  we  shall  not  one  of 
us  be  the  less  presumptuous  if  we  dare  to  say 
that  any  human  enactments  can  overthrow  the 
Divine  and  Higher  Law.  Is  there  a  creature 
of  the  Almighty  in  existence  who  dare  say  to 
Him,  who  spins  the  world  like  a  top  on  its  in 
tangible  pivot,  that  our  law  is  higher  than  His? 

Although  I  am  not  so  vain  as  to  imagine  that 
I  can,  in  this  Court,  procure  a  reversal  of  those 
decisions  which  have  been  made  in  other  Fede 
ral  Courts  of  this  Union,  I  hold  it  to  be  none 
the  less  my  duty  to  argue  with  the  same  accu 
racy,  fidelity,  and  fulness  the  questions  in 
volved,  as  though  a  sound  argument  would  cer 
tainly  influence  the  Court  in  coming  to  a  cor 
rect  decision.  "Agitate!  agitate!  AGITATE!" 
is  my  motto,  and  my  duty  always,  until  the 
occasion  for  agitation  is  removed.  The  ingen 
ious  gentleman  who  opened  on  the  part  of  the 
Prosecution  took  occasion  to  read  at  length 
from  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  McLean,  the 
claim  of  a  compact  in  the  Constitution  to  pre 
serve  the  rights  of  slave-holders.  I  take  issue 
with  the  learned  Judge  on  this  point.  He  is 
not  the  only  learned  man  who  has  taken  this 
view,  in  order  to  bolster  up  the  legislation  of 
Congress  upon  this  subject.  But  I  have  an 
abundance  of  documentary  history  in  my  pos 
session  to  prove  the  very  contrary;  that  the 
Constitution  would  never  have  been  adopted  at 
all,  if  such  a  recognition  of  slavery  had  been 
made.  It  used  to  be  called  "fugitives  from 
service."  It  is  now  "fugitives  from  slavery" 
The  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution 
would  not  allow  the  word  "  slave  "  to  be  placed 
anywhere  in  that  instrument,  for  any  considera 
tion.  And  now  we  bring  our  school  children 
into  court,  that  they  may  hear  District- Attor 
neys  of  the  United  States  read  indictments 
against  free  citizens  of  the  State,  for  aiding  the 
escape  of  "  SLAVES."  But,  having  some  little 
knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  understand 
ing  what  moves  the  wills  at  Washington,  I 
know  perfectly  well  how  offices  and  honors  are 
dispensed ;  I  know,  very  well,  sir,  that  no  man 
could  obtain  your  place  on  the  judgment  seat, 
who  was  not  known  to  be  ready  to  send  back  a 
fugitive  slave  at  the  bidding  of  his  master.  I 
know  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  office  of  the 
District- Attorney.  And  so  of  all  the.  other 
offices  of  this  Court,  to  the  very  lowest.  But  I 
cannot  forget  that  my  friend,  the  District- Attor 
ney  here,  has  prepared  himself  for  his  place  in 
a  very  short  time  ;  for  it  is  only  a  few  years 
since  he  pressed  himself  upon  my  notice  as  a 
candidate  for  the  Governorship  of  Ohio,  on  the 


OBERLIN- WELLING! ON  RESCUE. 


65 


express  ground  that  he  was  a  thorough-going 
anti-slavery  man,  and  as  evidence  thereof  he 
declared  that  he  voted  for  Martin  Van  Buren 
in  1848  !  But  he  was  far  ahead  of  me  at  that 
time,  for  I  then  adhered  to  the  ranks  of  the 
old  Democracy,  and  voted  for  Lewis  Cass! 
[Laughter.]  To  illustrate  still  farther  the  fact 
that  the  people  of  Oberlin  hold  by  no  means 
peculiar  views  of  the  infamous  Act  of  September 
18,  1850,  I  will  read,  with  the  permission  of  the 
Court,  from  a  slip  which  I  hold  in  my  hands, 
the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  of  the  leading  citi 
zens  of  Cleveland,  composed  of  men  of  all 
political  creeds,  and  held,  as  it  will  be  seen, 
directly  after  that  unfortunate  enactment  was 
passed. 

"  On  the  llth  day  of  October,  1850,  a  large 
meeting  of  the  most  respectable  citizens  of 
Cleveland  was  called  to  express  their  senti 
ments  upon  the  passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  of  September  18th  preceding.  The  meet 
ing  was  held  in  Empire  Hall.  John  A.  Foot 
was  appointed  Chairman,  and  M.  C.  Younglove 
and  II.  C.  Brayton,  Secretaries.  A  committee 
was  appointed  to  present  Resolutions  upon  the 
subject,  composed  as  follows :  — 

"Joel  Tiffany,  Reuben  Hitchcock,  H.  V. 
WILLSON,  O.  H.  Knapp,  and  G.  A.  Benedict ; 
which  committee  reported  as  follows :  — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  passage  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Law  was  an  act  unauthorized  by  the  con 
stitution,  hostile  to  every  principle  of  justice 
and  humanity,  and,  if  persevered  in,  fatal  to 
Human  Freedom. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  that  law  strikes  down 
some  of  the  dearest  principles  upon  which  our 
fathers  predicated  their  right  to  assert  and 
maintain  their  independence,  and  is  charac 
terized  by  the  most  tyrannical  exercise  of 
power ;  and  that  it  cannot  be  sustained  without 
repudiating  the  doctrines  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  the  principles  upon 
which  all  free  governments  rest. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  tyranny  consists  in  the 
wilfully  violating  by  those  in  power  of  man's 
natural  right  to  personal  security,  personal  lib 
erty,  and  private  property ;  and  it  matters  not 
whether  the  act  is  exercised  by  one  man  or  a  mil 
lion  of  men,  it  is  equally  unjust,  unrighteous,  and 
destructive  of  the  ends  of  all  just  governments. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  regarding  some  portion 
of  the  Fugitive  Law  as  unconstitutional,  and 
the  whole  of  it  as  oppressive,  unjust,  and  un 
righteous,  we  deem  it  the  duty  of  EVERY  GOOD 
CITIZEN  to  denounce,  oppose  and  RESIST,  by  all 
proper  means,  the  execution  of  said  law,  and 
we  demand  its  immediate  and  unconditional 
repeal,  and  will  not  cease  to  agitate  the  ques 
tion  and  use  all  our  powers  to  secure  that 
object,  until  it  is  accomplished. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  that  a 
meeting  of  the  citizens  of  this  county  be  held 
at  Cleveland  on  the  26th  day  of  October, 
instant,  to  consider  said  law,  and  take  such 
action  thereon  as  may  be  expedient." 

9 


Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  have  you  ever  heard 
stronger  denunciations  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  from  Oberlin  ?  Unless  you  have,  you 
will  immediately  divest  yourselves  of  any  pre 
judice  against  Oberlin,  or  against  this  defend 
ant,  because  he  comes  from  Oberlin,  that  may 
have  been  engendered  in  your  minds.  In 
Oberlin  they  don't  believe  in  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law ;  but  neither  do  the  best  citizens  of 
Cleveland,  nor  have  they  from  the  first  day  of 
its  passage.  I  have  not  read  the  foregoing  res 
olutions  for  the  purpose  of  deriding  them.  I 
am  with  them  heart  and  hand,  in  every  sen 
tence,  word,  and  letter.  I  hold  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  to  be  unconstitutional.  I  believe 
that  Congress  had  no  right  to  legislate  upon 
this  subject  at  all. 

The  odious  act  which  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
read  and  consider  as  a  lawyer,  reads,  the  first 
part  of  it,  as  follows.  Brightly1  s  Diyest,  294. 

"  §  1.  When  a  person  held  to  labor  in  any 
of  the  United  States,  or  in  either  of  the  Terri 
tories  on  the  north-west  or  south  of  the  river 
Ohio,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall  escape  into 
any  other  of  the  said  States  or  Territories,  the 
person  to  whom  such  labor  or  service  may  be 
due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  is  hereby  empowered 
to  seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive  from  labor,  and 
to  take  him  or  her  before  any  Judge  of  the 
Circuit  or  District  Courts  of  the  United  States, 
residing  or  being  within  the  State,  or  before 
any  magistrate  of  a  county,  city,  or  town  cor 
porate,  wherein  such  seizure  or  arrest  shall  be 
made,  and  upon  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of 
such  judge  or  magistrate,  either  by  oral  testi 
mony  or  affidavit  taken  before  and  certified  by 
a  magistrate  of  any  such  State  or  Territory, 
that  the  person  so  seized  or  arrested  doth, 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  from 
which  he  or  she  fled,  owe  service  or  labor  to 
the  person  claiming  him  or  her,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  such  judge  or  magistrate  to  give  a  cer 
tificate  thereof  to  such  claimant,  his  agent  or 
attorney,  which  shall  be  sufficient  warrant  for 
removing  the  said  fugitive  from  labor  to  the 
State  or  Territory  from  which  he  or  she  fled." 

The  eighth  section  of  this  statute,  as  found 
in  Brightly's  Digest,  is  inserted  as  an  amend 
ment  to  the  law  of  1793,  p.  296,  §  8.  "When 
a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State 
or  Territory  of  the  United  States  has  hereto 
fore,  or  shall  hereafter,  escape  into  another 
State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  the 
person  or  persons  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or 
attorney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney 
in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under 
the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  court  of  the 
State  or  Territory  in  which  the  same  may  be 
executed,  may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugitive 
person,  either  by  procuring  a  warrant  from 
some  one  of  the  courts,  judges,  or  commissioners 
aforesaid  of  the  proper  circuit,  district,  or 
county,  for  the  apprehension  of  such  fugitive 
from  service  or  labor,  or  by  seizing  and  arrest- 


66 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


ing  such  fugitive  where  the  same  can  be  done  I 
without  process,  and  by  taking  or  causing  such 
person  to  be  taken  forthwith  before  such  court, 
judge,  or  commissioner,  whose  duty  it  shall  be 
to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of  such  claim 
ant  in  a  summary  manner;  and  upon  satis 
factory  proof  being  made  by  deposition  or 
affidavit  in  writing,  to  be  taken  and  cei'tified 
by  such  court,  judge,  or  commissioner,  or  by 
other  satisfactory  testimony  duly  taken  and 
certified  by  some  court,  magistrate,  justice  of 
the  peace,  or  other  legal  officer  authorized  to 
administer  an  oath  and  take  depositions  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  from  which 
such  person  owing  service  or  labor  may  have 
escaped,  with  a  certificate  of  such  magistracy 
or  other  authority,  as  aforesaid,  with  the  seal 
of  the  proper  court  or  officer  thereto  attached, 
which  seal  shall  be  sufficient  to  establish  the 
competency  of  the  proof,  and  with  proof  also 
by  affidavit  of  the  identity  of  the  person  whose 
service  or  labor  is  claimed  to  be  due  as  afore 
said,  that  the  person  arrested  does  in  fact  owe 
service  or  labor  to  the  person  or  persons  claim 
ing  him  or  her,  in  the  State  or  Territory  from 
which  such  fugitive  may  have  escaped  as  afore 
said,  and  that  said  person  escaped ;  to  make 
out  and  deliver  to  such  claimant,  his  or  her 
agent  or  attorney,  a  certificate  setting  forth  the 
substantial  facts  as  to  the  service  or  labor  due 
from  the  fugitive  to  such  claimant,  and  of  his  or 
her  escape  from  the  State  or  Territory  in  which 
such  service  or  labor  was  due,  to  the  State  or 
Territory  in  which  he  or  she  was  arrested, 
with  authority  to  such  claimant,  his  or  her 
agent  or  attorney,  to  use  such  reasonable  force 
and  restraint  as  may  be  necessary,  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  to  take  and  remove 
such  fugitive  person  back  to  the  State  or 
Territory  whence  he  or  she  may  have  escaped 
as  aforesaid.  In  no  trial  or  hearing  under  this 
act  shall  the  testimony  of  such  alleged  fugi 
tive  be  admitted  in  evidence ;  and  the  cer 
tificates  in  this  and  the  first  [fourth]  section 
mentioned,  shall  be  conclusive  of  the  right  of 
the  person  or  persons  in  whose  favor  granted  to 
remove  such  fugitive  to  the  State  or  Territory 
from  which  he  escaped,  and  shall  prevent  all 
molestation  of  such  person  or  persons  by  any 
process  issued  by  any  court,  judge,  magistrate, 
or  other  person  whomsoever." 

Then  in  the  9th  section  is  the  interdiction 
against  obstructing  arrest,  and  rescuing  the 
fugitive,  the  most  of  which  I  have  already  read. 

I  desire  the  Court  to  notice  particularly  the 
phraseology  of  these  sections,  because  I  shall 
comment  upon  them  hereafter,  and  I  do  not  like 
to  be  obliged  to  read  them  again.  In  the  first 
section  of  the  act  of  1793,  the  constitutional 
expression  "held  to  service  or  labor  in  any 
State  or  Territory  under  the  laws  thereof,"  is 
twice  repeated,  but  in  the  8th  section,  passed 
and  approved  September  18,  1850,  the  words 
"  under  the  laws  thereof,"  are  wholly  omitted. 

My  first  point,  sir,  is  that  Congress  had  no 


more  right  to  legislate  upon  this  subject  than  I 
have,  as  an  humble  individual.  And  under 
what  plausible  —  I  cannot  say  substantial  — 
pretexts  do  they  claim  such  a  right  ?  Why 
first  —  and  that  which  takes  most  hold  on  the 
hearts  of  the  people  —  that  the  Act  of  1793 
was  passed  by  a  Congress  composed  in  part  of 
men  who  were  in  the  Convention  that  framed 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  But 
what  if  they  were  ?  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  the  case  of  Prigg  against 
Pennsylvania,  declared  that  these  men  were  all 
ignoramuses,  because  they  gave  power  to  the 
State  Courts  to  interfere,  to  a  certain  extent,  in 
carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  And 
if  George  Washington  and  John  Adams  and  a 
score  of  such  men  might  be  mistaken  as  to  the 
authority  of  State  officers,  might  they  not  just 
as  easily  be  mistaken  upon  any  other  equally 
debatable  point  ?  But,  sir,  we  must  never  go 
to  these  men  alone  who  framed  the  Constitution 
to  learn  its  meaning.  They  can  only  shed  light 
upon  it.  THE  PEOPLE  made  the  Constitution 
by  adopting  it,  and  we  must  take  it  as  they 
adopted  it,  and  ask  how  they  understood  it.  It 
cannot  be  successfully  argued  here  that  the 
people  were  deceived  and  defrauded  by  the  in 
genious  men  who  were  sent  to  draft  the  Consti 
tution.  That  they,  without  knowing  what  they 
did,  adopted  an  instrument  supposing  it  to  be 
an  instrument  of  freedom,  which  really  con 
signed  them  and  their  posterity  to  slavery.  But 
his  Honor,  the  associate  Justice  who  presides 
on  this  Circuit  of  the  United  States,  tells  us 
that  the  Constitution  never  would  have  been 
adopted  without  this  Fugitive  clause.  I  am 
thankful,  sir,  that  I  can  read  the  English  lan 
guage  as  well  as  Chief  Justice  Taney  —  a  little 
better  now  —  and  as  well  as  any  other  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  And  that  is  all  that  is 
necessary  to  enable  me  to  understand  the  his 
tory  of  the  Constitution  —  I  set  out  with  the 
proposition,  that  this  Fugitive  servant  clause 
never  was  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  compro 
mises  between  the  North  and  the  South,  never 
was  so  regarded  by  the  Southern  States  that 
ratified  it,  and  never  was  so  regarded  any 
where  else,  until  a  very  modern  date. 

[Judge  BELDEN  remarked  that  the  Massa 
chusetts  Supreme  Court  had  ruled  with  Justice 
McLean.] 

Yes,  and  I  know  that  Chancellor  Walworth 
of  New  York,  ruled  the  opposite,  while  Mr. 
Justice  Nelson  held  with  the  Massachusetts 
Bench ;  and  that  these  two  men  being  before  the 
President  as  candidates  for  a  vacancy  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Wahcorth 
lost  the  prize  and  Nelson  obtained  it,  just  by  this 
difference  of  ruling.  So  true  is  it,  Mr.  Belden, 
that  "  thrift  follows  fawning." 

I  do  not  stand  here  to  claim  that  at  that  day, 
so  soon  after  the  seven  years'  struggle  for  free 
dom,  the  opinion  that  slavery  was  wrong  in  a 
free  Government,  was  confined  to  any  of  the 
New  England  States.  On  the  contrary,  much 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


67 


to  my  own  regret,  I  am  warranted  in  saying, 
that,'  in  the  Convention,  the  delegates  from 
Connecticut  contributed  more  to  the  conces 
sions  to  the  Slave  Power  than  did  the  delegates 
from  Virginia. 

In  the  Madison  Papers,  Vol.  — ,  page  — ,  I 
find  that  "  Mr.  SHERMAN  disapproved  of  the 
slave-trade,  yet  as  the  States  were  now  pos 
sessed  of  the  right  to  import  slaves,  as  the  pub 
lic  good  did  not  require  it  to  be  taken  from 
them,  and  as  it  was  best  to  have  as  few  objec 
tions  as  possible  to  the  proposed  scheme  of  gov 
ernment,  he  thought  it  Ibest  to  leave  the  matter 
as  we  find  it.  He  observed  that  the  abolition 
of  slavery  seemed  to  be  going  on  in  the  United 
States,  and  that  the  good  sense  of  the  several 
States  would  probably  by  degrees  complete  it. 
He  urged  on  the  Convention  the  necessity  of 
despatching  its  business." 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  said  by  Col.  MASON  : 
"  This  infernal  traffic  originated  in  the  avarice 
of  British  merchants.  The  British  Govern 
ment  constantly  checked  the  attempts  of  Vir 
ginia  to  put  a  stop  to  it.  The  present  question 
concerns  not  the  importing  States  alone,  but 
the  whole  Union.  The  evil  of  having  slaves 
was  experienced  during  the  late  war.  Had 
slaves  been  treated  as  they  might  have  been  by 
the  enemy,  they  would  have  proved  dangerous 
instruments  in  their  hands.  But  their  folly 
dealt  by  the  slaves  as  it  did  by  the  tories.  He 
mentioned  the  dangerous  insurrections  of  the 
slaves  in  Greece  and  Sicily ;  and  the  instruc 
tions  given  by  Cromwell  to  the  Commissioners 
sent  to  Virginia,  to  arm  tlfe  servants  and  slaves, 
in  case  other  means  of  obtaining  its  submission 
should  fail.  Maryland  and  Virginia,  he  said, 
had  already  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves 
expressly.  North  Carolina  had  done  the  same 
in  substance.  All  this  would  be  in  vain  if 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  be  at  liberty  to 
import.  The  Western  people  are  already  call 
ing  out  for  slaves  for  their  new  lands ;  and  will 
fill  that  country  with  slaves,  if  they  can  be  got 
through  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  Slavery 
discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor 
despise  labor  when  performed  by  slaves.  They 
prevent  the  immigration  of  whites,  who  really 
enrich  and  strengthen  a  country.  .  They  pro 
duce  the  most  pernicious  effect  on  manners. 
Every  master  of  slaves  is  born  a  petty  tyrant. 
They  bring  the  judgment  of  Heaven  on  a 
country.  As  nations  cannot  be  rewarded  or 
punished  in  the  next  world,  they  must  be  in 
this.  By  an  inevitable  chain  of  causes  and 
effects,  Providence  punishes  national  sins  by 
national  calamities.  He  lamented  that  some  of 
our  Eastern  brethren  had,  from  a  lust  of  gain, 
embarked  in  this  nefarious  traffic.  As  to  the 
States  being  in  possession  of  the  right  to  import, 
this  was  the  case  with  many  other  rights,  now 
to  be  properly  given  up.  He  held  it  essential 
in  every  point  of  view  that  the  General  Govern 
ment  should  have  power  to  prevent  the  increase 
of  slavery." — Madison  Papers,  pp.  1390,  1391. 


"  Mr.  SHERMAN  said  it  was  better  to  let  the 
Southern  States  import  slaves,  than  to  part  with 
them,  if  they  made  that  a  sine  qua  non.  He 
was  opposed  to  a  tax  on  slaves  imported,  as  mak 
ing  the  matter  worse,  because  it  implied  they  were 
PROPERTY.  He  acknowledged  that  if  the  power 
of  prohibiting  the  importation  should  be  given 
to  the  General  Government,  it  would  be  exer 
cised.  He  thought  it  would  be  its  duty  to  ex 
ercise  the  power?*  —  Ibid.,  1396. 

Mr.  BALDWIN,  in  order  to  restrain  and  more 
explicitly  define  "  the  average  duty,"  moved  to 
strike  out  the  second  part  of  "the  words,  "  aver 
age  of  the  duties  laid  on  imports,"  and  insert 
"  common  impost  on  articles  not  enumerated ;" 
which  was  agreed  to,  nem.  con. 

Mr.  SHERMAN  was  against  this  second  part, 
as  acknowledging  men  to  be  property  by  taxing 
them  as  such  under  the  character  of  slaves. 

Mr.  KING  and  Mr.  LANGDON  considered  this 
was  the  price  of  the  first  part. 

General  PINCKNEY  admitted  that  it  was  so. 

Colonel  MASON.  Not  to  tax  will  be  equiva 
lent  to  a  bounty  on  the  importation  of  slaves. 

Mr.  GORIIAM  thought  that  Mr.  SHERMAN 
should  consider  the  duty,  not  as  implying  that 
slaves  are  property,  but  as  a  discouragement  to 
the  importation  of  them. 

Mr.  GOUVERNEUR  MORRIS  remarked,  that,  as 
the  clause  now  stands,  it  implies  that  the  Leg 
islature  may  tax  freemen  imported. 

Mr.  SHERMAN,  in  answer  to  Mr.  GORIIAM, 
observed,  that  the  smallness  of  the  duty  showed 
revenue  to  be  the  object,  not  the  discouragement 
of  the  importation. 

Mr.  MADISON  thought  -it  wrong  to  admit  in  the 
Constitution  the  idea  that  there  could  be  property 
in  men.  The  reason  of  duties  did  not  hold,  as 
slaves  are  not  like  merchandise,  consumed,  etc. 
— Ibid.,  1429,  1430. 

Mr.  BUTLER  and  Mr.  PINCKNEY  moved  to 
require  "  fugitive  slaves  and  servants  to  be  de 
livered  up  like  criminals." 

Mr.  WILSON.  This  would  oblige  the  Exec 
utive  of  the  State  to  do  it,  at  the  public  ex 
pense. 

Mr.  SHERMAN  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the 
public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave  or  servant 
than  a  horse. 

Mr.  BUTLER  withdrew  his  proposition  in  or 
der  that  some  particular  provision  might  be 
made,  apart  from  this  article.  —  Ibid.,  1447, 
1448. 

Mr.  BUTLER  moved  to  insert  after  Article 
15,  "  If  any  person  bound  to  service  or  labor  in 
any  of  the  United  States,  shall  .escape  into 
another  State,  he  or  she  shall  not  be  discharged 
from  such  service  or  labor,  in  consequence  of 
any  regulation  subsisting  in  the  State  to  which 
they  escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the 
person  justly  claiming  their  service  or  labor," 
which  was  agreed  to,  nem.  con. — Ibid.,  1456. 

This  was  agreed  to,  nem.  con.  Now,  is  there 
any  man  within  the  sound  of  my  voice  who  can 
suppose  that  such  a  proposition  would  have 


68 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


been  thus  unanimously  agreed  to,  if  those  men 
could  have  looked  forward  and  seen  that  such 
an  act  as  that  of  Sept.  18,  1850  would  be  based 
upon  it  ?  Never,  sir  !  I  say  again,  sir,  that 
no  article  which  would  have  authorized  the  pas 
sage  of  such  an  Act  as  this  infamous  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  of  1850  could  by  any  possibility 
have  been  put  through  that  Convention ;  and  if  it 
had  been  inserted,  before  the  people  would  have 
adopted  it,  they  would  have  gone  without  a 
Constitution  to  this  day  !  And  this  is  as  com 
petent  to  be  passed  upon  by  any  man  who  can 
understand  the  English  language  as  if  he  had 
all  the  law-learning  of  Mr.  Justice  McLean. 
But  we  do  not  have  the  Constitution  till  we 
have  another  amendment 

Article  4,  Section  2,  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  received  on  Wednesday,  September 
12,  read:  — 

"  No  person  legally  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
one  State,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  con 
sequence  of  regulations  subsisting  therein,  be 
discharged  from  such  service  or  labor;  but 
shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

On  Saturday,  September  15th,  Mr.  Madison 
says  in  his  diary  (p.  1589)  : 

"  Article  4,  Section  2  (the  third  paragraph), 
the  term  *  legally '  was  struck  out,  and  the 
words  *  under  the  laws  thereof  inserted  after 
the  word  '  State,'  in  compliance  with  the  wish 
of  some  who  thought  the  term  legal  equivocal, 
and  favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was  legal  in  a 
moral  view" 

So  this  paragraph,  as  finally  adopted,  reads : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor ;  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor 
may  be  due." 

Such,  then,  is  the  history  of  this  paragraph 
of  the  Constitution,  and  no  one  other  has  been 
so  thoroughly  misrepresented  and  misunder 
stood,  and  yet  no  one  article  or  paragraph  in 
that  or  any  other  document  in  the  English  lan 
guage  should  be  less  liable  to  misconstruction. 
In  and  of  itself,  the  words  convey  but  one 
meaning ;  and,  as  if  gifted  with  some  dim  fore 
sight  of  the  violence  that  might  be  done  the 
compact  by  posterity,  the  members  of  the  Con 
vention  guarded  it  by  the  use  of  the  plainest 
language.  "  Contracts  of  service  made  in  one 
State,  shall  not  be  declared  void  by  the  laws  of 
another  State''  is  what  this  section  says,  and 
nothing  else,  more  or  less.  And  nothing  can 
be  more  remarkable  than  the  care  taken  that 
the  words  should  be  so  chosen  that  they  could, 
by  no  violence,  be  wrested  to  another  meaning. 
Every  equivocal  word  or  phrase  was  jealously 
cut  out  No  tax  should  be  laid  on  slaves,  lest 
the  Government  seem  to  recognize  property  in 
them.  The  word  "  slave  "  must  not  appear  in 
the  Constitution,  lest  the  Government  seem  to 


recognize  slavery  as  a  lawful  institution.  And 
the  phrase  "  legally  held  "  would  never  do,  lest 
with  apprentices  and  free  laborers,  fugitives 
from  slavery  being  reckoned,  the  infamous  in 
stitution  might  seem  to  be  ranked  with  contracts 
for  service  sanctioned  by  the  Higher  Law,  in 
strict  accordance  with  which  it  was  desired  to 
frame  this  new  Government  The  States  in 
Confederation  had  neither  the  power  nor  the 
right  to  abolish  any  institution  existing  by  law 
in  a  part  of  the  States,  and  upon  no  footing  of 
equality  could  a  union  be  effected,  unless  all 
existing  local  institutions  were  left  to  the  care 
of  the  local  authorities,  and  the  different  States 
were  prevented  from  interfering  with  the  inter 
nal  policy  of  each  other.  To  effect  this  essen 
tial  condition  of  the  Union,  this  paragraph  was 
adopted.  And  here  we  are  within  three  quar 
ters  of  a  century  of  the  adoption  of  the  Con 
stitution,  standing  before  a  Federal  tribunal, 
contending  against  the  Federal  Government, 
that  it  is  necessary  to  aver  in  an  indictment 
against  a  free  citizen  of  a  State,  charged  with 
rescuing  a  fugitive  from  sen-ice  from  his  cap 
tors,  that  the  fugitive  did  owe  service  or  labor  in 
the  State  from  which  he  is  alleged  to  have  fled, 
under  the  laws  thereof! 

So  fast,  sir,  have  we  degenerated;  to  such 
an  "  administration  of  justice  "  have  we  already 
come  !  Is  it  not  time  that  we  halt  ?  Is  it  not 
important  that  we  ask  whether  the  time  will 
not  soon  be  upon  us  when  our  own  children 
shall  have  the  manacles  now  brought  from 
Kentucky  for  African  slaves,  encircling  their 
fair  limbs  ?  But  we  are  told  that  there  is  no 
danger  of  mistaking  Saxon  children  for  African 
slaves.  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  is  there  one 
of  you  who  would  not  be  proud  to  reckon  that 
flaxen-haired  little  boy  yonder  among  your 
children  ?  His  skin  is  whiter  than  the  District- 
Attorney's,  and  his  hair  not  half  so  curly  !  And 
yet,  less  than  six  months  ago  that  child  was  set 
free  in  the  Probate  Court  in  this  city,  having 
been  brought,  a  slave,  from  North  Carolina! 
[Marked  sensation.] 

The  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  the 
right  to  legislate  upon  such  subjects  only  as  are 
expressly  assigned  to  it  by  the  Constitution. 
But  most  certainly  the  Constitution  gives  them 
no  power  to  legislate  for  the  return  of  fugitive 
slaves,  either  expressly  or  by  implication.  But 
now  the  Federal  Court  —  mark  it,  the  Federat 
Court  —  helps  Congress  to  the  power,  with  THE 
TYRANT'S  PLEA  —  "  It  is  EXPEDIENT  to  legis 
late.  It  is  necessary  for  the  Slave  States,  in  or 
der  to  protect  their  property,  that  Congress 
should  legislate ;  and  whether  the  power  was 
given  by  the  Constitution  or  not,  it  is  EXPE 
DIENT  that  it  should  legislate,  and  legislate 
effectually.  And  if  the  Free  North  protests, 
its  people  shall  be  hung  as  traitors."  This  is 
where  we  stand  to-day,  while  the  whole  civil 
ized  world  is  looking  on,  and  a  small  part  of 
it  regarding  us  as  FREEMEN  ! 

I  say  the  only  intent  of  the  last  paragraph 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


69 


of  Section  2  of  Article  IV.,  was  to  prevent  the 
free  States  from  passing  laws  which  would  ob 
struct  the  capture  of  servants,  should  the  mas 
ter  follow  them,  and  insist  on  their  return  to 
service.  No  wider  scope  can  possibly  be  given 
to  it.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  I  insist  so 
strenuously  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  leg 
islate  at  all  upon  this  subject  None  what 
ever. 

But  here,  however  fully  I  might  admit  the 
right  of  the  slave-owner  to  follow  his  fleeing 
slave  into  a  free  State  and  seize  him,  I  differ 
from  the  gentleman  widely,  when  he  says  that 
the  slave-owner  has  the  same  control  over  his 
slave  in  Ohio  that  he  has  in  Kentucky.  He 
has  the  same  privilege  to  reclaim  his  negro 
that  he  has  to  reclaim  his  horse,  but  he  has  no 
SLAVE  in  Ohio,  for  all  that.  He  must,  while 
in  Ohio,  treat  the  fugitive  as  a  man.  Not  so, 
perhaps,  in  Kentucky. 

I  now  proceed  to  my  next  proposition,  which 
is,  that  the  Act  of  1850  is  unconstitutional,  be 
cause  it  provides  pains  and  penalties  for  free 
citizens  of  Ohio,  for  acts  concerning  which 
they  are  not  amenable  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States. 

Before  the  Constitution  was  formed,  the 
States  were  every  one  of  them  free  and  inde 
pendent  sovereignties.  They  fought  together, 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  through  a  seven  years' 
war,  to  effect  their  independence  of  the  domin 
ion  of  Great  Britain.  Then  each  one  for  itself 
was  a  distinct,  independent  empire.  Each  one 
could  make  peace  and  war,  levy  duties  upon 
commerce,  make  its  criminal  code,  regulate  its 
domestic  police,  or  protect  its  frontier.  Before 
and  during  the  war,  the  States  had  entered  into 
an  alliance  for  common  defence  against  the  en 
emy.  But  after  the  peace  it  was  found  that 
these  articles  of  Confederation  were  imperfect. 
And  now  I  wish  to  call  the  special  attention  of 
your  Honor  to  the  fact,  that  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  instrument  we  now  call  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  was  called 
together  by  the  confederate  Congress  itself,  to 
do  a  specific  work.  And  that  work  was  not  to 
frame  a  new  Government,  but  to  amend  the  old 
articles  of  Confederation.  For  instance,  before 
this  Convention  was  called,  there  was  no  pro 
vision  for  a  revenue  for  national  purposes.  It 
was  therefore  necessary  that  the  foreign  com 
merce  of  all  the  States  should  be  put  under  the 
care  of  Congress,  that  a  revenue  might  be  rais 
ed  upon  it  for  the  support  of  Government. 
There  were  a  number  of  such  important  con 
cessions  made  to  the  General  Government. 
But  certainly,  it  was  never  intended  to  frame, 
much  less  adopt,  an  instrument  as  a  Constitu 
tion,  which  should  eat  up  all  State  independ 
ence.  And  there  was  great  sensitiveness  on 
this  point  in  the  State  Conventions  which  rati 
fied  the  Constitution,  from  the  proceedings  of 
some  of  which  I  now  proceed  to  read  a  few  ex 
tracts.  4  Elliott's  Debates,  285,  I  find  that  the 
principal  topic  of  discussion  in  the  State  Con 


ventions,  as  well  as  in  the  General  Conven 
tion,  so  far  as  slavery  was  concerned,  was  the 
stoppage  of  the  foreign  slave-trade,  to  which 
South  Carolina  was  averse,  even  after  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  Convention 
of  South  Carolina  (4  Elliott,  285),  Gen.  Pinck- 
ney  said  "  he  would  make  a  few  observations  on 
the  objections  which  the  gentleman  had  thrown 
out  on  the  restrictions  that  might  be  laid  on  the 
African  slave-trade  after  the  year  1808.  On 
this  point  your  delegates  had  to  contend  with 
the  religious  and  political  prejudices  of  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States,  and  with  the  inter 
ested  and  inconsistent  opinion  of  Virginia,  who 
was  warmly  opposed  to  our  importing  more 
slaves.  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  now  that  I 
was  two  years  ago,  when  I  used  the  expressions 
the  gentleman  has  quoted  —  that,  while  there 
remained  one  acre  of  swamp  land  uncleared  of 
South  Carolina,  I  would  raise  my  voice  against 
restricting  the  importation  of  negroes.  I  am  as 
thoroughly  convinced  as  that  gentleman  is,  that 
the  nature  of  our  climate,  and  the  flat,  swampy 
situation  of  our  country,  obliges  us  to  cultivate 
our  lands  with  negroes,  and  that  without  them 
South  Carolina  would  soon  be  a  desert  waste. 

"  You  have  so  frequently  heard  my  sentiments 
on  this  subject,  that  I  need  not  now  repeat 
them.  It  was  alleged  by  some  of  the  members 
who  opposed  an  unlimited  importation,  that 
slaves  increased  the  weakness  of  any  State  who 
admitted  them;  that  they  were  a  dangerous 
species  of  property,  which  an  invading  enemy 
would  easily  turn  against  ourselves  and  the 
neighboring  States;  and  that,  as  we  were  al 
lowed  a  representation  for  them  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  our  influence  in  government 
would  be  increased  in  proportion  as  we  were 
less  able  to  defend  ourselves.  '  Show  some  pe 
riod,'  said  the  members  from  the  Eastern  States, 
*  when  it  may  be  in  our  power  to  put  a  stop,  if 
we  please,  to  the  importation  of  this  weakness, 
and  we  will  endeavor,  for  your  convenience,  to 
restrain  the  religious  and  political  prejudices  of 
our  people  on  this  subject.1  The  Middle  States 
and  Virginia  made  us  no  such  proposition; 
they  were  for  an  immediate  and  total  prohibi 
tion.  We  endeavored  to  obviate  the  objections 
that  were  made  in  the  best  manner  we  could, 
and  assigned  reasons  for  our  insisting  on  the 
importation,  which  there  is  no  occasion  to  re 
peat,  as  they  must  occur  to  every  gentleman  in 
the  house ;  a  committee  of  the  States  was  ap 
pointed  in  order  to  accommodate  this  matter, 
and  after  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  it  was  settled 
on  the  footing  recited  in  the  Constitution. 

"By  this  settlement  we  have  secured  an  un 
limited  importation  of  negroes  for  twenty  years. 
Nor  is  it  declared  that  the  importation  shall 
then  be  stopped ;  it  may  be  continued.  We 
have  a  security  that  the  General  Govern 
ment  can  never  emancipate  them,  for  no  such 
authority  is  granted ;  and  it  is  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  the  General  Government  has  no  pow 
ers  but  what  are  expressly  granted  by  the  Con- 


70 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


stitution,  and  that  all  rights  not  expressed  were 
reserved  by  the  several  States.  We  have  ob 
tained  a  right  to  recover  our  slaves  in  whatever 
part  of  America  they  may  take  refuge,  which  is  a 
right  we  had  not  before.  In  short,  considering 
all  circumstances,  we  have  made  the  best  terms 
for  the  security  of  this  species  of  property  it  was 
in  our  power  to  make.  We  would  have  made 
better  if  we  could ;  but  on  the  whole,  I  do  not 
think  them  bad."— 4  Elliott's  Debates,  285, 
28G. 

Now,  may  it  please  your  Honor,  if  the  states 
men  of  South  Carolina  would  construe  the  Con 
stitution  in  the  paragraph  which  we  have  to 
deal  with  to-day,  with  the  same  acumen  with 
which  they  would  construe  other  articles,  I 
should  be  safe,  even  with  them  in  my  reasoning. 
Indeed,  one  of  them,  Mr.  Rhett,  has  done  so  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  shown  this 
act  of  1850  to  be  wholly  unconstitutional.  But 
take  the  latitudinous  construction  now  contend 
ed  for  in  order  to  convict  this  man  ;  where  is 
the  safety  of  slave  property  in  any  State  ? 
Congress  has  express  power  to  legislate  for  the 
public  welfare.  Suppose  a  majority  in  Con 
gress  should  say  the  public  welfare  required  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  States ;  —  may  they 
not  pass  an  act  to  that  effect  upon  this  loose 
assumption  of  power  ?  And  then  where  go 
their  rights  to  their  slaves  ?  This  argument  of 
"  expediency  "  is  like  the  sword  of  the  cheru 
bim,  —  it  turns  every  way,  —  and  I  warn  the 
gentlemen  against  its  incautious  use. 

In  the  making  of  this  sacred  instrument 
which  was  intended  to  be  a  "  Charter  of  Free 
dom,"  it  was  supposed  that  a  perfect  system  of 
checks  and  balances  was  introduced  into  the 
Federal  Government.  But  alas !  there  was  a 
great  mistake  made,  for  it  now  appears  that  in 
constituting  a  life  Judiciary,  they  followed  the 
example  of  Great  Britain,  without  securing  her 
"  balance-wheel."  The  plea  for  a  life  Judiciary 
was,  that  the  judges  must  be  made  independent 
of  popular  favor,  or  there  was  no  security  for 
the  rights  of  the  citizen.  But  the  fact  is,  that 
our  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  greater 
power  than  any  other  judicial  tribunal  on  the 
face  of  the  globe !  A  power  absolutely  unlim 
ited.  It  was  forgotten  that  there  was  a  check 
upon  the  courts  in  Great  Britain,  and  that 
check  was  the  Parliament.  Every  important 
decision  of  the  Queen's  Bench  is  subject  to  the 
revision  of  the  Upper  House  of  Parliament. 
And  this  has  been  found  of  the  utmost  conse 
quence.  But  in  our  own  free  country  we  find 
a  court  which  was  constituted  mainly  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  laws  ol 
Congress  regulating  the  external  concerns  oi 
the  Confederacy,  reaching  out  its  Briarean 
arms  and  grasping  every  subject  of  jurisdic 
tion  until  precious  little  of  State  Rights  is  left  I 
Why,  they  have  long  ago  determined  that  they 
have  a  right  to  take  jurisdiction  of  cases  in 
State  Courts,  by  the  removal  of  the  cause  under 
"  an  appeal "  in  the  shape  of  a  writ  of  error ; 


and  by  this  miserable  sham  they  have  obtained 
control  of  every  thing  that  can  fall  within  the 
:ognizance  of  our  State  court !  It  has  come  to 
this,  that  a  State  cannot  regulate  the  levy  and 
collection  of  its  own  taxes,  in  obedience  to  its 
own  constitution,  without  being  liable  to  a  per 
emptory  mandate  from  the  Federal  Court  at 
Washington.  There  is  scarcely  any  thing  more 
of  State  sovereignty  left  us  than  the  name,  and 
the  last  vestige  of  judicial  power  in  the  States 
will  soon  be  centred  in  the  United  States 
Supreme  Bench.  And,  sir,  it  is  because  of 
this  alarming  state  of  things  that  I  feel  bound 
to  animadvert  upon  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  For 
they  have  now  come  to  pronounce  upon  and 
affect  to  regulate  the  private  conduct  of  free 
citizens  of  the  States  with  reference  even  to 
the  discharge  of  high  moral  duties.  I  say  that 
this  is  a  matter  which  cannot  come  within  the 
province  of  Congress,  and  ought  not  to  come 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Federal  court.  It 
belongs  exclusively  to  State  legislatures  and 
State  courts. 

But  again.  The  act  of  1850  does  violence 
to  the  constitution,  for  it  overrides  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  The  constitution  says  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  may  be  suspended  only  in 
times  of  rebellion,  and  of  foreign  invasion. 
But  the  escape  of  a  negro  slave  is  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other.  Yet  the  Act  of  1850 
says : — 

"  And  the  certificates  in  this  and  the  first 
[fourth]  section  mentioned,  shall  be  conclusive 
of  the  right  of  the  person  or  persons  in  whose 
favor  granted,  to  remove  such  fugitive  to  the 
State  or  Territory  from  which  he  escaped,  and 
shall  prevent  all  molestation  of  such  person  or 
persons  ly  ANY  process  issued  by  ANY  court, 
judge,  magistrate,  or  other  person  whomsoever!' 
In  Blightly's  Digest,  from  which  I  read,  a  note 
upon  this  latter  clause  says :  — 

"  State  tribunals  and  officers  cannot,  by  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  interfere  with  the  Fed 
eral  authorities  when  acting  upon  cases  arising 
under  this  act.  1  Blatchford,  635,  Sims's  case, 
7  Cush.  285." 

The  Attorney-General  says  it  was  never  in 
tended  to  override  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
And  Judge  Nelson,  in  his  famous  charge  to  the 
Grand  Jury  in  New  York,  contained  in  the 
first  of  Blatchford's  Reports,  says,  that  a  Fed 
eral  court  may  of  course  issue  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus ;  the  Act  was  intended  only  to  prevent 
the  interference  of  STATE  courts  I 

Has  it  come  to  this  then  ?  May  we  no  longer 
look  to  State  courts  for  relief  from  oppression  ? 
When  our  liberties  are  endangered,  have  we 
no  protection  at  home?  Has  the  Federal 
Court  already  all  the  power  ?  If  this  is  the 
doctrine,  sir,  you  may  just  as  well  tell  us 
frankly,  that  our  State  Governments  are  not 
worth  a  rush. 

I  turn  again  to  the  debates  in  the  State  con 
ventions  called  to  ratify  the  Constitution.  In 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


71 


the  North  Carolina  Convention,  the  Constitu 
tion  being  under  consideration  :  — 

"  Article  4.  The  first  section  and  first  two 
clauses  of  the  second  section  read  without  ob 
servation. 

"  The  last  clause  being  read, 

"  MR.  IUEDELL  begged  leave  to  explain  the 
reason  of  this  clause.  In  some  of  the  Northern 
States  they  have  emancipated  all  their  slaves. 
If  any  of  "our  slaves,  said  he,  go  there  and  re 
main  there  a  certain  time,  they  would  by  the 
present  laAvs  be  entitled  to  their  freedom,  so 
that  their  masters  could  not  get  them  again. 
This  would  be  extremely  prejudicial  to  the  in 
habitants  of  the  Southern  States ;  and  to  pre 
vent  it,  this  clause  is  inserted  in  the  Constitu 
tion.  Though  the  word  slave  is  not  mentioned, 
this  is  the  meaning  of  it.  The  Northern  dele 
gates,  owing  to  their  particular  scruples  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  did  not  choose  the  word 
slave  to  be  mentioned."  —  4  Elliott's  Debates, 
176. 

According  to  the  statement  of  a  North  Caro 
linian,  then,  before  this  clause  in  the  Constitu 
tion  was  adopted,  slaves  going  into  the  free 
States  would  become  free.  But  with  this  clause 
they  might  pursue  and  reclaim  them.  Yet  not 
even  here,  and  nowhere  else  in  the  history  of 
these  times,  can  it  be  found,  that  the  right  of 
Congress  to  legislate  on  the  subject,  and,  above 
all,  to  make  it  the  duty  of  Federal  officers  to 
capture  and  return  fugitive  slaves,  was  ac 
knowledged  or  mentioned.  Justice  Me  Lean 
based  his  opinion  upon  the  state  of  public  sen 
timent  in  the  South,  at  the  time  of  which  we 
speak  :  but  even  that  does  not  bear  him  out  in 
his  assertions. 

Gen.  HEATH,  a  member  of  the  Massachu 
setts  Convention,  declared,  when  this  Constitu 
tion  was  under  consideration  in  that  Conven 
tion  :  — 

"  I  apprehend  that  it  is  not  in  our  power  to 
do  any  thing  for  or  against  those  who  are  in 
slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  No  gentleman 
within  these  walls  detests  every  idea  of  slavery 
more  than  I  do  :  it  is  generally  detested  by  the 
people  of  this  commonwealth ;  and  I  ardently 
nope  that  the  time  will  soon  come  when  our 
brethren  in  the  Southern  States  will  view  it  as 
we  do,  and  put  a  stop  to  it ;  but  to  this  we  have 
no  right  to  compel  them.  Two  questions  natu 
rally  arise  :  if  we  ratify  the  Constitution,  shall 
we  do  any  thing  by  our  act  to  hold  the  blacks  in 
slavery  ?  or  shall  we  become  the  partakers  of 
other  men's  sins?  I  think  neither  of  them. 
Each  State  is  sovereign  and  independent  to  a 
certain  degree,  and  the  States  have  a  right,  and 
they  will  regulate  their  own  internal  affairs  as 
to  themselves  appears  proper ;  and  shall  we  re 
fuse  to  eat,  or  to  drink,  or  to  be  united  with 
those  who  do  not  think  or  act  just  as  we  do  V 
Surely  not.  We  are  not,  in  this  case,  partakers 
of  other  men's  sins; 'for  in  nothing  do  we  vol 
untarily  encourage  the  slavery  of  our  fellow 
men.  A  restriction  is  laid  on  the  Federal  Gov 


ernment  which  could  not  be  avoided  and  a 
union  take  place.  The  Federal  Convention 
went  as  far  as  they  could.  The  migration,  or 
importation,  etc.,  is  confined  to  the  States  now 
existing  only  ;  new  States  cannot  claim  it.  Con 
gress,  by  their  ordinance  for  erecting  new 
States,  some  time  since,  declared  that  the  new 
States  shall  be  republican,  and  that  there  shall 
be  no  Slavery  in  them. "  —  2  Elliott's  Debates,  115. 

The  great  Constitutional  lawyer,  Daniel 
Webster  —  he  had  his  failings,  but  he  was  a 
great  man,  and  a  great  Constitutional  expounder 
—  Mr.  Webster  held,  among  other  positions 
which  he  never  yielded,  and  from  which  he 
could  never  be  driven,  this  one :  that,  so  far  as 
it  regarded  the  provisions  in  the  Constitution 
recognizing  the  existence  of  slavery  at  all,  they 
were  intended  to  affect  the  original  thirteen 
States  alone.  "  For,"  said  he,  "  were  slavery 
not  thus  geographically  limited,  by  and  by^  a 
few  wealthy  slaveholders  would  have  the  entire 
control  of  the  Nation  through  the  House  of 
Representatives." 

I  read  now  a  remark  from  Mr.  ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON  in  the  Convention  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  He  has  been  extensively  known 
as  one  of  the  great  advocates  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution  itself;  and  also 
a  member  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of 
New  York  which  ratified  it,  and  throughout  the 
sessions  of  the  latter  authoritatively  expounded 
the  scope  and  meaning  of  each  of  the  Articles. 
And  it  is  to  a  remark  of  his  that  I  wish  to  call 
the  attention  of  your  Honor,  because  it  supports 
me  in  the  position  which  I  have  taken,  that  the 
crime  with  which  my  client  is  charged  is  one  ot 
which  the  Federal  Congress  can  take  no  cog 
nizance.  He  says :  — 

"  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  interests,  hab 
its,  and  manners  of  the  thirteen  States  are  dif 
ferent  ;  and  hence  it  is  inferred  that  no  general 
free  government  can  suit  them.  This  diversity 
of  habits,  etc.,  has  been  a  favorite  theme  with 
those  who  are  disposed  for  a  division  of  our 
empire,  and,  like  many  other  popular  objec 
tions,  seems  to  be  founded  on  fallacy.  I  ac 
knowledge  that  the  local  interests  of  the  States 
are  in  some  degree  various,  and  that  there  is 
some  difference  in  the  manners  and  habits.  But 
this  I  will  presume  to  affirm,  that,  from  New 
Hampshire  to  Georgia,  the  people  of  America 
are  as  uniform  in  their  interests  and  manners 
as  those  of  any  established  in  Europe.  This 
diversity,  to  the  eye  of  a  speculatist,  may  af 
ford  some  marks  of  characteristic  discrimina 
tion,  but  cannot  form  an  impediment  to  the 
regular  operation  of  those  general  powers  which 
the  Constitution  gives  to  the  united  government. 
Were  the  laws  of  the  Union  to  new-model  the 
internal  police,  of  any  State  ;  were  they  to  alter 
or  abrogate  at  a  blow  the  whole  of  its  civil  and 
criminal  institutions ;  were  they  to  penetrate  the 
recesses  of  domestic  life,  and  control  in  all  re 
spects  the  private  conduct  of  individuals,  — 


72 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


there  might  be  more  force  in  the  objection ;  and 
the  same  Constitution  which  was  happily  calcu 
lated  for  one  State,  might  sacrifice  the  welfare 
of  another."  —  2  Elliott's  Debates,  267,  268. 

I  read  now  farther  —  same  book,  401  — 
from  the  remarks  of  Mr.  TREDWELL  in  the 
same  Convention,  —  that  of  New  York.  He 
was  opposing  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
because  of  some  of  the  provisions  which  Time 
has  actually  shown  to  be  radical  defects. 

"  In  this  Constitution,  sir,  we  have  departed 
widely  from  the  principles  and  political  faith  of 
'76,  when  the  spirit  of  liberty  ran  high,  and 
danger  put  a  curb  on  ambition.  Here  we  find 
no  security  for  the  rights  of  individuals,  no 
security  for  the  existence  of  our  State  Gov 
ernments  ;  here  is  no  bill  of  rights,  no  proper 
restriction  of  power ;  our  lives,  our  property, 
and  our  consciences,  are  left  wholly  at  the  mer 
cy  of  the  legislature,  and  the  powers  of  the  Ju 
diciary  may  be  extended  to  any  degree  short  of 
Almighty.  Sir,  in  this  Constitution  we  have 
not  only  neglected,  —  we  have  done  worse,  — 
we  have  openly  violated  our  faith,  —  that  is, 
our  public  faith." 

On  the  next  page  he  continues :  — 

"  There  is  another  clause  in  this  Constitution, 
which,  though  there  is  no  prospect  of  getting  it 
amended,  I  think  ought  not  to  be  passed  over 
in  silence,  lest  such  a  silence  should  be  con 
strued  into  a  tacit  approbation  of  it.  I  mean 
the  clause  which  restricts  the  General  Govern 
ment  from  putting  a  stop,  for  a  number  of  years, 
to  a  commerce  which  is  a  stain  to  the  commerce 
of  any  civilized  nation,  and  has  already  black 
ened  half  the  plains  of  America  with  a  race 
of  wretches  made  so  by  our  cruel  policy  and 
avarice,  and  which  appears  to  me  to  be  already 
repugnant  to  every  principle  of  humanity,  mo 
rality,  religion,  and  good  policy." 

A  little  further  on,  page  405,  he  says :  — 

"  A  union  with  our  sister  States  I  as  ardently 
desire  as  any  man,  and  that  upon  the  most 
generous  principles ;  but  a  union  under  such  a 
system  as  this,  I  think,  is  not  a  desirable  thing. 
The  design  of  a  union  is  safety,  but  a  union 
upon  the  proposed  plan  is  certain  destruction  to 
liberty.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  it  may  bring  us 
to  a  state  of  safety ;  for  it  may  reduce  us  to 
such  a  condition  that  we  may  be  very  sure  that 
nothing  worse  can  happen  to  us,  and  conse 
quently  we  shall  have  nothing  to  fear. 

"  This,  sir,  is  a  dreadful  kind  of  safety ;  but  I 
confess  it  is  the  only  kind  of  safety  I  can  see  in 
this  union.  There  are  no  advantages  that  can 
possibly  arise  from  a  union  which  can  compen 
sate  for  the  loss  of  freedom,  nor  can  any  evils 
be  apprehended  from  a  disunion  which  are  as 
much  to  be  dreaded  as  tyranny.1" 

So  much,  may  it  please  your  Honor,  and 
you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  in  vindication  of 
the  truth  of  history.  I  say,  therefore,  believing 
myself  fully  borne  out  in  the  affirmation  by  the 
history  of  the  Constitution,  that  its  adoption 
did  not  depend,  wholly  or  in  part,  upon  the 


adoption  of  the  paragraph  which  provides  that 
no  State  shall  set  at  liberty  a  fugitive  ser 
vant. 

I  say,  that  the  sentiment  throughout  the 
States  was  such  that  no  Constitution  would  ever 
have  been  ratified  which  was  supposed  to  set 
up  an  uncontrolled  despotism  in  the  place  of 
liberty. 

May  it  please  the  Court,  I  know  full  well 
what  have  been  the  rulings  of  the  Federal 
Courts  on  the  subject  under  consideration,  and 
that  this  is  not  the  time,  nor  the  place,  to  hope 
to  stem  the  tide  of  despotism  already  moving 
with  such  alarming  volume  in  our  unhappy 
country ;  but  I  hold  it  to  be  none  the  less  my 
right  and  duty  to  announce  my  own  views  as 
to  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  under  which 
my  client  is  arraigned. 

The  language  of  the  Indictment  is :  — 

"  And  the  Jurors  aforesaid  do  further  present 
and  find,  that  Simeon  Bushnell,  late  of  the  Dis 
trict  aforesaid,  together  with  divers,  to  wit,  200 
other  persons,  to  the  Jurors  aforesaid  unknown, 
heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  first  day  of  October, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-eight,  at  the  District  aforesaid, 
and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  with 
force  and  arms,  unlawfully,  knowingly,  and 
willingly  did  rescue  the  said  negro  slave  called 
John,  then  and  there  being  pursued  and  re 
claimed,  seized  and  arrested,  and  in  the  cus 
tody  and  control  aforesaid,  he  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John  being  then  and  there  a  fugi 
tive  from  and  held  to  service  and  labor,  as 
aforesaid  [to  wit,  held  to  service  and  labor  in 
the  State  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  United 
States,  the  said  John  bein^  the  property  of  one 
John  G.  Bacon,  of  the  said  State  of  Kentucky, 
the  person  to  whom  such  labor  and  service 
were  then  due],  from  the  custody  of  the  said 
Anderson  Jennings,  then  and  there  the  author 
ized  agent  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  as  afore 
said,  and  the  said  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  then  and 
there  lawfully  assisting  him,  the  said  Anderson 
Jennings,  as  aforesaid ;  he  the  said  Simeon 
Bushnell  then  and  there  well  knowing  that  the 
said  negro  slave  called  John  was  then  and 
there  a  fugitive  person  held  to  service  and 
labor,  as  aforesaid,  and  pursued  and  reclaimed, 
seized  and  arrested,  and  held  in  custody,  as 
aforesaid,  to  the  great  damage  of  the  said  John 
G.  Bacon,  contrary  to  the  form  of  the  Act  of 
Congress  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  and 
against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  United 
States." 

I  insist,  may  it  please  your  Honor,  and  with 
great  earnestness,  upon  the  exception  which 
has  been  already  taken  to  the  omission  in  the 
indictment  of  the  averment  that  the  slave  owed 
service  in  Kentucky  "  under  the  laws  thereof." 
I  insist  that  the  averment  is  necessary  and  ma 
terial,  and  that  without  it  1,he  indictment  is  bad. 

And  I  insist  farther,  that,  a  person*  entitled 
to  service  in  the  State  of  Kentucky  "  under  the 
laws  thereof,"  cannot  come  into  the  State  of 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


73 


Ohio  for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming  a  fugitive. 
We  have  an  instrument  'for  our  government 
made  anterior  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  or  any  act  of  Congress ;  I  allude  to  the 
compact  made  between  the  States  anterior  to 
the  framing  of  the  Constitution. 

In  the  Ordinance  made  for  the  government 
of  the  North- Western  Territory,  I  read  as 
follows :  "  It  is  hereby  ordained  and  declared, 
by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  the  following 
articles  shall  be  considered  as  articles  of  com 
pact  between  the  original  States  and  the 
people  and  States  in  the  said  territory,  and 
forever  remain  unalterable,  unless  by  common 
consent,  to  wit :  — 

"ART.  1.  No  person,  demeaning  himself  in 
a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  shall  ever  be 
molested  on  account  of  his  mode  of  worship  or 
religious  sentiments  in  the  said  territory. 

"  ART.  2.  The  inhabitants  of  the  said  terri 
tory  shall  always  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  of  the  trial  by 
jury;  of  a  proportionate  representation  of  the 
people  in  the  legislature,  and  of  judicial  pro 
ceedings  according  to  the  course  of  the  common 
law.  All  persons  shall  be  bailable,  unless 
for  capital  offences,  where  the  proof  shall  be 
evident  or  the  presumption  great.  All  fines 
shall  be  moderate,  and  no  cruel  or  unusual 
punishments  shall  be  inflicted.  No  MAX  shall 
be  deprived  of  his  liberty  or  property,  but  by  the 
judgment  of  his  peers,  etc." 

I  think  there  was  no  dissenting  voice  in  the 
adoption  of  this  Ordinance,  or  at  most  only  a 
single  dissenting  vote. 

"  Unless  by  common  consent."  Can  there 
be  any  doubt  of  the  import  of  this  language  ? 

"ART.  6.  There  shall  be  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the  said  territory, 
otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con 
victed  ;  provided  always,  that  any  person 
escaping  into  the  same  from  whom  labor  or 
service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  one  of  the 
original  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully 
reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim 
ing  his  or  her  service  as  aforesaid 

"Done  by  the  United  States,  in  Congress 
assembled,  the  13th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of 
pur  Lord  1787,  and  of  their  sovereignty  and 
independence  the  twelfth. 

"  CHARLES  THOMSON,  Secretary:' 

^1  know  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  ruled  that,  notwithstanding 
this  6th  article,  the  fugitive  acts  of  1793  and 
1850  obtained  over  the  North- Western  Terri 
tory,  but  I  believe  this  ruling  to  be  erroneous; 
I  do  not  consider  myself  a  very  learned  man, 
but  I  do  not  claim  to  know  much  when  I  say  I 
am  the  equal  in  knowledge  of  some  of  those 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  whom  I  have 
seen  upon  the  bench.  I  hold,  that  there  can 
be  no  reclaiming  of  fugitive  slaves  escaping 
from  the  State  of  Kentucky  into  the  State  of 

10 


Ohio,  because  it  is  expressly  said  that  the 
escape  must  be  from  one  of  the  "  original 
States." 

[Thursday  Morning.] 

A  very  pertinent  inquiry  was  made  of  me  by 
the  Bench  yesterday  evening,  and  one  which  I 
ought  to  have  answered,  perhaps,  a  little  more 
fully  than  I  did. 

The  inquiry  was,  if  I  did  not  know  that  the 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  the  Con 
stitution  did  away  the  force  and  effect  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787?  I  do  know  it,  sir,  per 
fectly  well ;  I  knoAv  it  was  decided  that  the 
Ordinance  of  1787  was  no  protection  to  a  citi 
zen  of  Ohio  when  charged  with  harboring  a 
fugitive  slave  from  Kentucky.  And  I  said  that 
though  I  had  great  respect  for  the  Supreme 
Bench,  I  had  no  possible  respect  for  such  decis 
ions,  for  I  believed  them  to  be  totally  wrong.  It 
is  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  that  the  Constitution  should  be  in 
terpreted  by  the  acts  of  those*who  lived  at  the 
time  it  was  framed  and  adopted.  The  first  Con 
gress  that  assembled  wider  the  Constitution  passed 
an  Act  ratifying  the  Ordinance  of  1787  as 
strongly  as  possible.  It  is  found  in  1  United 
States  Statutes  at  Large,  50,  and  is  entitled, 
"  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  government  of  the 
Territory  North-west  of  the  river  Ohio."  The 
purport  of  it  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  pre 
amble  :  — 

"  Whereas,  in  order  that  the  Ordinance  of 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  for 
the  government  of  the  Territory  North-west  of 
the  river  Ohio  may  continue  to  have  full  effect, 
it  is  requisite  that  certain  provisions  should  be 
made,  so  as  to  adapt  the  same  to  the  present 
Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

And  that  it  may  clearly  appear  that  this  ad 
ditional  statute  has  no  bearing  other  than  that 
of  a  recognition  of  this  validity  upon  the  quo 
tations  I  have  made  from  the  original  Ordinance, 
I  will,  with  the  permission  of  your  Honor,  read 
the  entire  Act. 

"  SECTION  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Un  ited  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  in  all 
cases  in  which  by  the  said  Ordinance,  any  in 
formation  is  to  be  given,  or  communication 
made,  by  the  Governor  of  the  said  Territory 
to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  or 
to  any  of  their  officers,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  said  Governor  to  give  such  information  and 
to  make  such  communication  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  President  shall 
nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  con 
sent  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint,  all  officers 
which  by  the  said  Ordinance  were  to  have  been 
appointed  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  as 
sembled,  and  all  officers  so  appointed  shall  be 
commissioned  by  him ;  and  in  all  cases  where 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  might, 
by  the  said  Ordinance,  revoke  any  commission 
or  remove  from  any  office,  the  President  is 


HISTOBY  OP  THE 


hereby  declared  to  have  the  same  powers  of 
revocation  and  removal. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in 
the  case  of  the  death,  removal,  resignation,  or 
necessary  absence  of  the  Governor  of  the  said 
Territory,  the  Secretary  thereof  shall  be,  and 
he  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  exer 
cise  all  the  powers  and  perform  all  the  duties  of 
the  Governor,  during  the  vacancy  occasioned 
by  the  removal,  resignation,  or  necessary  ab 
sence  of  the  said  Governor. 

"Approved,  August  7,  1789." 

With  the  alterations  mentioned  in  this  Act, 
the  Ordinance  is  left  in  full  force,  and  these 
alterations  are  made  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
continuing  it  in  force,  as  averred  in  the  pre 
amble. 

Now  if  any  single  Judge  or  body  of  Judges, 
can  overrule  this  Ordinance  and  put  it  down, 
and  say  that  all  the  then  Territory  North-west 
of  the  river  Ohio  is  not  to-day  covered  and 
sheltered  by  this  ^Egis  of  Freedom,  I  beg  to 
know,  sir,  what  guaranty  we  have  for  any  of 
our  liberties ! 

I  affirm  that  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  was  not  in  favor  of  slavery, 
but  decidedly  opposed  to  it,  and  tolerating  it 
only  as  a  temporary  evil,  which  must  soon  be 
done  away.  This  has  clearly  appeared  in  my 
citations,  few  and  hurried  as  they  have  been. 
Even  the  simple  paragraph  which  closes  Sec 
tion  2,  of  Article  4,  was  not  in  the  draft  pre 
sented  by  Hamilton,  nor  in  that  of  Randolph, 
nor  in  that  of  Pinckney,  nor  yet  in  that  of 
Patterson,  of  New  Jersey  ;  but  it  was  an  after 
thought,  put  in  merely  to  quiet  the  fears  of  the 
Southern  States  that  their  slaves  might  be  freed 
by  touching  Northern  soil.  How,  then,  it  may 
be  asked,  were  the  rights  of  the  Southern 
States  to  be  protected  ?  I  answer,  by  simply 
forbidding  the  Northern  States  to  interfere  with 
them ;  by  proclaiming  the  favorite  doctrine  of 
some  modern  politicians,  the  doctrine  of  "  non 
intervention"  And  this  was  all  that  was  pro 
posed  to  be  done,  or  even  desired  by  the 
Southern  States  themselves.  Then,  under  the 
Constitution,  what  redress  has  a  slaveholder  in 
one  of  the  original  thirteen  States,  if  his  slave 
escapes  into  a  free  State?  Why,  the  same 
that  he  would  have  if  his  horse  had  thus  es 
caped,  or  that  a  citizen  of  a  free  State  would 
have  if  his  horse  escaped  into  a  slave  State. 
He  might  pursue,  overtake,  and  seize  his  horse 
by  the  halter  wherever  he  could  find  him,  and 
if  no  one  interfered  with  his  leading  him  away, 
well ;  but  if  some  citizen  of  that  State  takes 
the  halter  away  from  him,  and  locks  the  horse 
up  in  his  stable,  claiming  the  horse  as  his,  then 
let  him  bring  an  action  of  replevin  or  detinue 
for  the  chattel,  trover  or  trespass  for  damage. 
And  this  is  security  enough.  It  was  all  that 
was  ever  dreamed  of  in  the  Convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution.  It  is  all  the  South 
thought  of  asking.  It  is  entirely  an  after 


thought,  this  making  extraordinary  provision 
for  this  peculiar  species  of  property.  It  is  said 
that  the  Act  of  1793  was  passed  by  a  Congress 
that  understood  the  Constitution,  inasmuch  as 
some  of  its  members  were  in  the  Convention 
of  1787,  that  framed  it.  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
with  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  his  asso 
ciates,  holds  that  in  the  Prigg  case  it  did  not 
understand  the  Constitution,  because  it  gave, 
in  that  act,  certain  jurisdiction  to  State  and 
local  officers ;  and  if  they  could  commit  a  mis 
take  on  so  important  a  point  as  that,  I  do  not  see 
why  they  might  not  on  any  other.  We  cannot 
be  bound  by  any  one  error  in  that  act  more 
than  another,  that  does  violence  to  the  Consti 
tution.  And,  as  a  Reverend  Doctor  of  Di 
vinity  said  in  the  meeting,  the  resolutions  of 
which  I  read  here  yesterday,  "  the  Act  of  1850 
is  to  the  Act  of  1793  as  a  dose  of  molten  lead 
to  a  '  mint  julep  !  ' '  [Laughter.] 

I  have  said  that  the  Act  of  1850  is  unconsti 
tutional,  because  it  does  away  with  the  right  of 
habeas  corpus,  and  because  it  interferes  with 
the  internal  police  regulations  of  the  State ; 
and  I  now  proceed  to  say  that  it  is  also  un 
constitutional,  because  it  does  not  guarantee  to 
the  person  arrested  as  a  fugitive  from  service, 
the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  And  why  was  not 
this  guaranty  given  ?  Why  did  not  the  Con 
gress  which  passed  that  bill  of  iniquity,  give 
the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ?  It  was  stoutly  and 
persistently  contended  for,  but  it  was  put  down 
by  the  tyrant's  plea,  "  IT  is  NOT  EXPEDIENT." 

Mr.  District- Attorney,  you  shake  your  head ; 
but  Mr.  Mason,  the  father  of  that  bill,  in  argu 
ing  this  very  point  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  said : 
"  If  we  commit  such  cases  to  a  jury  in  the 
free  States,  they  will  inquire  into  the  question 
whether  the  person  really  owed  service  or  labor, 
and  when  that  inquiry  is  raised,  we're  gone,  sir  ! 
slaveholders  have  no  longer  any  protection." 

I  was  thought  to  be  speaking  lightly  when  I 
said  there  were  none  of  us,  however  obtuse  our 
moral  sense  might  be,  but  respected  irresistibly 
the  Higher  Law.  If  I  change  the  term,  and 
call  it  God's  Law,  perhaps  it  may  not  sound  so 
very  ridiculous  in  the  ears  of  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side.  Mr.  Jefferson,  though  distin 
guished  as  a  statesman,  was  not  distinguished 
for  the  depth  or  fervor  of  his  religious  feelings ; 
yet  in  his  first  message  to  Congress,  he  says : 
u  All  laws,  in  order  to  be  respected  by  the  gov 
erned,  must  be  just,  —  must  be  founded  on  the 
principles  of  Eternal  Justice."  And  in  speak 
ing  of  the  partisan  success  which  elected  him, 
he  adds :  — 

"  Although  we  have  triumphed  by  a  signal 
majority,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  minority 
have  rights,  and  we  must  not  pass  laws  which 
will  infnnge  on.  the  consciences  or  the  rights  of 
that  minority." 

It  may  be  said  that  it  is  a  dangerous  doctrine 
to  proclaim,  that  the  people  may  judge  whether 
a  law  ought  or  ought  not  to  be  obeyed.  But 
without  this  doctrine  displayed  in  practice,  when 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


75 


should  we  have  become  an  independent  nation  ? 
Sir,  governments  are  instituted  for  the  benefit 
of  the  governed,  and  not  for  the  convenience 
of  the  Administrators  thereof.  And  if  the  peo 
ple  believe  themselves  outraged  by  their  ser 
vants,  and  the  "  still  small  voice  "  of  reproof  is 
not  heard,  the  thunder  and  the  lightning  of 
revolution  will  speedily  follow.  Gentlemen  of 
the  Jury,  I  remember,  in  the  short  course  of  my 
own  experience,  a  case  of  quasi  rebellion  in  this 
State.  In  1848  I  had  the  honor  to  be  Chair 
man  of  what  was  called  "  the  Dorr  Convention," 
at  Columbus.  The  Whig  legislature  had,  with 
a  high  hand,  divided  the  county  of  Hamilton  for 
election  purposes,  so  as  to  secure  to  their  party 
a  larger  representation  in  the  General  Assem 
bly.  The  Democracy  of  the  State  rallied  in 
Convention  under  the  very  eaves  of  the  Capi 
tol  ;  courageously  denounced  the  law  as  unjust 
and  outrageous,  and  pledged  themselves  under 
no  circumstances  to  regard  it.  The  Democratic 
voters  of  Hamilton,  disregarding  the  new  dis 
trict  limits,  elected  Representatives  as  before ; 
secured  them  their  seats  in  the  House,  and  act 
ually  compelled  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the 
odious  act.  In  that  struggle  I  took  part  as  a 
Democrat;  in  this,  with  the  sanie  temper  and 
spirit,  I  take  part  as  a  Republican. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  this  man  Bacon  from 
Kentucky  says,  that  he  owned  the  man  JOHN. 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  hope  you  will  not  be  very 
astute  to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  evidence. 
If  there  is  a  link  lacking  in  the  chain,  you  will 
give  the  defendant  the  benefit  of  it ;  and  watch 
against  that  infirmity  which  is  common  to  us 
all ;  that  pride  of  opinion  and  party  prejudice, 
which  would  tempt  you,  bein^  of  a  particular  po 
litical  cast,  to  work  the  conviction  of  a  man  be 
cause  he  comes  from  a  locality  which  is  said  to 
be  opposed  to  the  enactment  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law.  None  of  us  could  go  to  sleep  and 
sleep  soundly  after  entailing  fine  and  imprison 
ment  upon  a  fellow-citizen,  unless  the  law  and 
the  testimony  imperiously  required  it. 

Now,  let  us  revert  to  the  Constitution.  It 
has  been  read  to  you  upon  the  other  side.  We 
ought  all  to  read  it  oftener  than  we  do. 

"Article  IV.,  Section  2.  The  Citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  Privileges 
and  Immunities  of  Citizens  in  the  several 
States." 

Now  this  is  all  the  protection  that  can  consti 
tutionally  be  granted  or  ought  to  be  asked  by 
any  citizen  North  or  South.  But  how  often 
have  we  seen  this  clause  infringed  and  violated 
and  outraged  in  the  port  of  Charleston,  South 
Carolina,  by  the  seizure  and  imprisonment  of 
free  men,  because  God  made  them  men  of 
color,  and  for  no  other  pretended  or  alleged 
crime  whatever.  And  more  than  that,  when 
Massachusetts  had  been  insulted  and  outraged 
in  the  persons  of  her  citizens,  until  continued 
forbearance  would  be  ineffaceable  disgrace,  and 
she  sent  one  of  her  most  venerable  and  upright 
Judges  to  inquire  into  the  matter,  according  to  ! 


law,  he  was  threatened,  insulted,  and  mobbed, 
and  but  for  the  presence  and  protection  of  his 
poor  sick  daughter,  would  unquestionably  have 
lost  his  life. 

Oh !  if  I  could  live  to  see  that  proud  day 
when  no  slave  could  set  his  foot  upon  our  soil 
without  feeling  his  shackles  fall  forever  from 
his  galled  and  bleeding  limbs,  I  could  say,  Gen 
tlemen,  with  all  my  heart,  "  Lord,  now  lettest 
thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace ;  for  mine 
eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation  !  "  But  all  this  is 
prevented  by  this  Fugitive  clause  in  the  Con 
stitution.  The  common  law  can  say,  "  Slaves 
cannot  breathe  in  England ! ! !  "  but  alas,  no 
act  of  the  freemen  of  Ohio  can  enable  us  to 
say  so  here  1  Slaves  may  breathe  in  Ohio,  and 
they  may  be  pursued,  if  escaping  from  any  one 
of  the  original  thirteen  States,  and  with  cords 
and  whips  and  chains  and  bowie  knives  and 
revolvers  be  drawn  back,  and  sold  and  doomed 
to  the  hopeless  cotton  fields  and  rice  swamps  of 
the  South.  But  how  can  his  recaption  be 
made  ?  Not  by  an  Act  of  Congress  making  all 
our  citizens,  nolens  volens,  a  pack  of  blood 
hounds  to  do  the  bidding  of  the  man-hunter. 
Never,  sir ;  never  while  our  free  Republic  en 
dures.  But  were  even  this  possible,  the  trav- 
erser  at  the  bar  cannot  be  made  amenable  to 
the  act  of  1850  until  the  alleged  title  of  prop 
erty  in  the  boy  John  is  fully  shown.  Unless 
this  claim  of  property  is  established  beyond  all 
cavil,  the  prosecution  must  fail.  Mr.  Bacon 
comes  here  and  swears  that  John  is  his  slave. 
That  his  father  owned  John  and  John's 
mother,  and  that  he  died  intestate,  leaving  six 
children,  who  thus  became  his  heirs.  Here  he 
stops.  He  neither  alleges  a  release  of  the 
claim  of  the  other  five  heirs,  nor  shows  by  evi 
dence  in  any  other  way  exclusive  title  in  him 
self.  This  will  never  do.  The  six  heirs  inher 
ited  John,  each  inheriting  one  sixth,  and  no 
more.  Until  five  had  released  to  him  their 
claim  to  five  sixths  of  John,  Mr.  Bacon  had  not 
the  sole  control  of  him.  And  as  he  has  not 
shown  the  release  of  the  claim  of  a  single  heir, 
that  power  of  attorney  is  wholly  insufficient, 
because  in  it  John  G.  Bacon  assumes  the  exclu 
sive  control  of  joint  property. 

But  does  John  owe  service  to  either  of  them  ? 
Why,  Mr.  Bacon  swears  that  John  is  his  slave. 
But  is  that  sufficient  proof  in  the  free  State  of 
Ohio,  where  the  presumption  is  always  in  favor 
of  a  man's  freedom  ?  WThat  more  is  it  than  if 
you,  Mr.  Rhodes,  should  come  forward  and 
swear,  "  this  man  Spalding  is  my  slave  ? " 
And  do  the  citizens  of  Ohio  hold  their  liberties 
by  a  tenure  so  slight  that  the  unsupported  oath 
of  any  man  within  the  bounds  of  the  United 
States  will  at  any  instant  sever  it  forever  ? 

Yet,  Gentlemen,  it  is  so  claimed  by  the  pros 
ecuting  officer  of  this  Court ;  claimed  seriously 
and  positively,  as  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
'  in  a  summary  manner,"  in  the  Act  of  1850. 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  will  you  accept  that 
construction  ?  Will  you  agree  that  your  chil- 


76 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


dren,  no  whiter  than  tens  of  thousands  of 
Southern  slaves,  shall  be  exposed  to  the  loss  of 
freedom  by  means  of  a  false  oath,  on  the  part 
of  any  one  inhabitant  of  the  United  States  ? 

Such  an  oath  is  not  enough.  Even  this  law 
does  not  make  it  enough.  And  the  Constitu 
tion  is  a  great  way  from  making  it  enough.  It 
must  be  shown  that  the  fugitive  owes  service  in 
the  State  from  which  he  fled,  under  the  laws 
thereof.  And  here  I  am  met  by  another  vagary 
of  Mr.  Justice  McLean,  that  the  Court  may 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  State 
from  which  the  fugitive  is  alleged  to  have 
escaped,  is  a  slave  State  !  Now,  though  this  be 
a  Federal  decision,  it  is  one  against  which  I 
protest  absolutely,  as  against  one  of  those 
many  judicial  assumptions  which  are  rapidly 
and  fatally  undermining  our  free  institutions. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  the  owner  Bacon 
came  in  person,  but  that  he  sent  Jennings,  and 
authorized  him  in  a  joint  power  of  attorney 
made  by  two  individuals,  and  authorizing  the 
arrest  of  three  persons,  to  seize  and  arrest 
John,  and  return  him  to  Kentucky.  This  is 
altogether  too  loose  a  practice.  But  I  complain 
of  the  power  of  attorney  more  especially,  be 
cause  it  is  not  acknowledged  and  certified  as 
required  by  the  Act  of  Congress.  And  this  I 
hold  to  be  a  very  important  point  for  the  con 
sideration  of  the  Court  and  Jury.  The  ac 
knowledgment  is  as  follows :  — 

State  of  Kentucky, ") 

Mason  County,      f  SCt* 

I,  Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  County 
Court  of  the  county  aforesaid,  do  hereby  cer 
tify  that  this  power  of  attorney  from  Richard 
Loyd  and  John  G.  Bacon  to  Anderson  Jen 
nings,  was  this  day  produced  to  me  and  ac 
knowledged  by  the  said  Richard  Loyd  and 
John  G.  Bacon  to  be  their  act  and  deed.  The 
said  parties  are  personally  known  to  me,  and 
the  said  acknowledgment  is  according  to  law. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  official  seal,  in  the 
city  of  Maysville,  this  4th  day  of  September, 
1858.  ROBERT  A.  COCHRAX,  Clerk, 

by  WILLIAM  H.  RICHARDSON,  D.  C. 

Now,  sir,  this  clerk  of  the  county  of  Mason 
has  been  called  to  the  stand  by  the  District- 
Attorney,  and  he  says  that  he  was  not  present, 
and  the  instrument  was  not  acknowledged 
before  him.  But  what  does  he  testify  to  ? 
Why,  he  says  that  this  young  man  who  signs 
himself  below  as  William  H.  Richardson,  is  his 
deputy,  and  this  is  his  (the  deputy's)  hand 
writing.  I  ask,  then,  in  the  name  of  all  the 
expounders  of  law  that  were  ever  congregated 
on  the  Bench,  how  can  this  be  called  an  ac 
knowledgment  under  the  Act  of  1850?  For 
how  can  a  deputy  take  an  acknowledgment 
when  the  law  requires  the  principal  to  do  it  ? 

The  law  says :  — 

"  §  8.  When  a  person  held  to  service  or 
labor  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  i 
States,  has  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  escape 


into  another  State  or  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  the  person  or  persons  to  whom  such  ser 
vice  or  labor  may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their 
agent  or  attorney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of 
attorney  in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certified 
under  the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  Court  of 
the  State  or  Territory  in  which  the  same  may 
be  executed,  may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fu 
gitive  person,  etc."  —  Act  of  1850,  Brightly 's 
^Digest,  294. 

In  the  6  McLean  I  find  a  decision  upon  a 
point  bearing  very  much  upon  this :  — 

Weimer  v.  Sloane,  6  McLean,  259.  "  The 
Statute  authorizes  an  arrest,  either  by  the 
owner  or  his  agent,  with  or  without  warrant ; 
but,  when  made  by  an  agent,  he  must  be  author 
ized  by  a  written  power  of  attorney,  executed 
and  authenticated  as  required  by  the  Statute" 

Again,  in  Gibbons  v.  Sloane,  p.  2  73,  of  the  same 
volume,  "  The  evidence  was  the  same  in  both 
cases,  except  as  to  the  manner  of  the  execution 
of  the  power  of  attorney  to  Patton,  who  made 
the  arrest  as  the  agent  of  Gibbons ;  and  by  the 
consent  of  the  counsel  both  cases  were  submit 
ted  to  the  jury  at  the  same  time.  In  this  case 
it  appeared  that  Gibbons  had  executed  a  power 
of  attorney  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  as  re 
quired  by  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  which  either 
no  name  was  inserted  as  the  agent  of  the  plaintiff, 
or,  if  any,  that  of  some  person  other  than  Pat- 
ton  ;  and  that  afterwards  and  before  the  arrest 
of  the  fugitive  by  Patton,  his  name  was  inserted 
by  the  plaintiff  or  some  other  person,  at  San- 
dusky  City,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  without  any 
acknowledgment  of  the  instrument  in  that  State. 
The  Court  instructed  the  jury,  that,  under  the 
Act  of  1850,  this  was  not  a  valid  power  to  Pat- 
ton,  and  did  not  authorize  him  to  make  the  ar 
rest.  The  jury  returned  a  verdict  for  the  de 
fendant." 

These  requirements  of  the  law,  therefore, 
must  be  lived  up  to.  It  won't  answer  to  bring 
forward  a  power  of  attorney  here  without  such 
an  acknowledgment  as  the  Statute  prescribes. 

I  now  refer  to  a  case  in  the  3d  of  Barr's 
Pennsylvania  State  Reports,  495,  Lothrop  v. 
Blake,  to  show  how  the  certificate  of  a  deputy 
is  regarded  under  the  general  law  for  the  authen 
tication  of  records. 

"  By  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
Congress  have  the  poAver  to  prescribe  the  man 
ner  in  which  the  public  acts,  records,  and  judi 
cial  proceedings  in  the  several  States  shall  be 
proved  in  any  other  State ;  and  by  an  Act  ot 

90  Congress  has  declared  that  the  records  and 
judicial  proceedings  of  any  State,  shall  be  proved 
or  admitted  in  any  other  Court  of  the  United 
States,  by  the  attestation  of  the  clerk,  and  the 
seal  of  the  Court  annexed,  if  there  be  a  seal, 
together  with  a  certificate  of  the  Judge,  Chief 
Justice,  or  presiding  magistrate,  as  the  case  may 
be,  that  the  said  attestation  is  in  due  form." 

It  cannot  be  admitted  (as  is  justly  said  in 
Stephenson  v.  Banister,  3  Bibb,  370)  that  under 
this  act  any  judge  of  any  court  may  certify  a 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


7T 


record.  It  must  be  the  judge,  if  there  be  but 
one ;  or,  if  there  be  more,  then  by  the  chief 
justice,  or  presiding  judge  or  magistrate  of  the 
court  from  whence  the  record  comes ;  and  he 
must  possess  that  character  at  the  time  he  gives 
the  certificate.  A  certificate  that  he  is  the 
judge  that  presided  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  or 
that  he  is  the  senior  judge  of  the  courts  of  law 
in  the  State,  is  deemed  insufficient.  The  clerk 
also,  who  certifies  the  record,  must  be  the  clerk 
himself,  or  his  successor :  the  certificate  of  his 
under  clerk,  in  his  absence,  or  of  the  clerk  of 
any  other  tribunal,  office,  or  body,  is  held  in 
competent  for  the  purpose.  See  Sampson  v. 
Overton,  Bibb,  409  ;  and  Greenleaf  s  Evidence, 
sec.  506,  and  the  authorities  there  cited.  Nor 
will  the  statute  of  Ohio,  which  enables  deputies  to 
perform  the  duties  of  the  principal,  make  the  au 
thentication  of  the  record  by  him,  evidence  ;  as 
this  would  enable  the  several  States  to  alter  and 
control  an  act  of  Congress.  It  must  be  con 
strued  by  itself,  independent  of  legislative  en 
actments.  This  record  is  attested  by  the  deputy, 
and  is  certified  by  N.  C.  Reed,  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  but  by  the  record  it 
appears  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  court  of 
which  the  Honorable  Ebenezer  C.  Lane  is  the 
Chief  Justice.  The  record,  therefore,  is  not 
certified  as  is  directed  by  the  act  of  Congress, 
and  was  on  both  grounds  improperly  admitted. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  have  now  con 
cluded  what  I  had  to  say  upon  the  power  of  at 
torney.  And  the  Court  will  tell  you,  I  appre 
hend,  that  it  is  worthless,  because  not  acknowl 
edged  before  the  Clerk  in  person. 
What  next  ? 

We  find  that  on  a  certain  day  in  September, 
1858,  the  peaceful  village  of  Oberlin  was  enter- 
;  ed  by  three  or  four  unusual  visitors,  and  in 
rather  an  unusual  manner.  Oberlin  has  the 
character  of  being  a  moral  town,  much  more 
I  than  ordinarily  moral,  perhaps.  And  it  has 
1  the  character  of  containing  very  many  minds 
.!  utterly  opposed  to  the  infliction  of  involuntary 
1  servitude  upon  any  human  being,  except  as  a 
punishment  for  crime.  Now,  if  it  be  any  ben 
efit  to  the  Prosecution  to  understand  that  this 
is  the  general  feeling  of  that  town,  so  be  it. 
They  may  take  the  acknowledgment  in  wel 
come.  I  freely  admit  that  Oberlin  is  an  asylum 
for  the  oppressed  of  all  God's  creation,  without 
distinction  of  color.  So  long  as  a  man  behaves 
well,  they  administer  to  him  the  common  chari 
ties  of  life.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it  There 
is  no  doubt  they  are  called  sternly  religious, 
and  so  have  been  very  many  men  known  to  us 
in  history,  as  the  defenders  of  Freedom.  The 
absolute  character  of  the  crown  of  Great  Brit 
ain  was  effectually  changed  by  such  men  as  the 
men  of  Oberlin.  The  Roundheads  of  the  days 
of  Cromwell,  who  went  into  battle  with  a  sabre 
in  one  hand  and  a  Bible  in  the  other,  were  such 
men.  Their  general  orders  were,  "Trust  in 
God,  but  keep  your  powder  dry."  By  such 
men  only  could  the  liberties  of  England  have 


been  successfully  achieved.  The  Cavaliers  or 
Royalists  driven  thence,  unfortunately  for  us, 
during  the  Protectorate,  took  up  their  abode  in 
our  Southern  provinces.  They  are  there,  in  the 
persons  of  their  offspring,  to  this  day.  But  we 
have  the  spirit  of  the  Roundheads  in  the  North ; 
and  God  forbid  that  we  should  not  speedily  de 
cide  which  shall  have  the  supremacy  here.  For 
Slavery  and  Freedom  cannot  exist  together; 
one  must  die  that  the  other  may  live.  And  I 
say,  with  the  patriots  of  '76,  "Better  that  we 
do  without  the  Union,  than  without  our  liber 
ties." 

The  village  of  Oberlin  was  invaded  by  slave 
catchers.  And  I  am  glad  that  in  this  very  first 
trial  we  have,  within  the  precincts  of  this  Con 
necticut  Western  Reserve,  so  fair  a  specimen 
of  a  Kentucky  Slave  Catcher.  A  man  who 
would  shine  as  the  leader  of  a  banditti :  six  feet 
four  inches,  and  well  proportioned:  a  short 
neck  and  bushy  beard,  a  buffalo  bull,  from  the 
prairies  of  Arkansas,  with  an  Arkansas  tooth 
pick  at  his  waist,  and  a  brace  of  revolvers  in 
his  pocket.  I  say  again,  I  am  glad  we  have 
such  an  exhibition  on  this  the  first  trial  of  a 
Rescuer  on  the  Western  Reserve :  it  may  not 
need  so  frequent  repetition.  This  man,  to 
gether  with  as  great  a  bully  as  himself,  from 
Kentucky,  a  Deputy  United  States  Marshal 
from  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio,  and  the 
Columbus  jailer,  —  the  same  who  ironed  the 
schoolmaster  Lincoln,  before  his  weeping  schol 
ars,  and  thrust  him  into  the  dungeon  like  a 
felon,  among  thieves  and  vermin,  —  made  up 
the  select  party  who  descended  upon  Oberlin. 
Such  men  come  for  our  chastening,  no  doubt, 
and  are  among  the  inscrutable  dispensations  of 
Divine  Providence,  which  arc  manifested  for 
our  good  if  we  would  only  lay  it  to  heart.  Such 
men  come,  it  is  said,  to  fulfil  the  law,  not  to 
break  the  peace ;  armed  with  all  necessary 
process,  as  they  claim,  and  with  the  Marshal  of 
the  United  States  to  execute  the  same.  Why, 
then,  did  they  not  go  to  work  openly  and  serve 
their  process  ?  saying  to  the  people  of  Oberlin, 
"  we  have  a  legal  warrant1  for  the  apprehension 
of  the  negro  John,  and  shall  make  lawful 
service  of  the  same.  Make  resistance  you  may, 
but  serve  our  papers  we  shall.  Resistance, 
however,  we  do  not  anticipate :  make  way  for 
the  officer  to  execute  his  warrant  peaceably, 
and  we  are  away  about  our  business."  Now 
if  they  had  done  this,  and  the  people  of  Ober 
lin  had  raised  a  mob,  and  thrown  these  ruffians 
into  a  "  horse  pond,  "  the  law  might  have  been 
violated,  but  I  confess  I  should  have  been  per 
sonally  gratified ! 

But  what  do  we  find  ? 

This  United  States  Marshal  Lowe,  and  the 
tall  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  went,  of  a  Sat 
urday  night  to  the  dwelling  of  General  Lewis 
D.  Boynton ;  —  an  old  friend  of  mine,  by  the 
way :  a  man  of  large  heart  and  generous  im 
pulses,  but  having  curious  notions  about  politics 
and  slavery.  The  wife  administered  the  rites 


78 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


of  hospitality  to  these  men  in  her  husband's 
absence.  The  next  morning  they  are  intro 
duced  to  the  General,  and  make  known  their 
business.  It  would  be  interesting  to  have  that 
conversation  before  us.  But  no  matter.  The 
bright,  precocious  little  son  of  Boynton  is  put 
upon  the  stand,  —  and  what  a  story  does  he  tell ! 
The  most  minute,  disgusting  details  of  this 
blood-betraying  bargain.  How  readily  he  con 
sented  to  play  the  Judas,  and  how  well  satisfied 
he  was  with  the  reward  of  his  treason,  — the 
twenty  —  it  should  have  been  thirty  —  pieces 
of  silver ! 

[Judge  BLISS  :  Twenty  was  enough  for  a 
boy.] 

No,  sir ;  it  should  have  been  "  THIRTY."  It 
is  too  sickening  to  go  through  again  with  the 
details  of  this  loathsome  transaction.  You 
have  heard  it,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  from 
the  lips  of  the  witnesses,  including  this  poor 
child  himself,  and  my  associate  adverted  to  it 
at  some  length.  But  I  do  not  wish  you  to  pass 
it  lightly.  So  foul  a  compact,  in  which  the  de 
pravity  of  youth  and  the  corruption  of  age  are 
so  nearly  on  a  level,  and  that  level  so  near  the 
very  "pit"  itself,  made  in  the  sacred  stillness 
of  Sabbath  hours,  and  that  Sabbath  shedding 
its  holy  light  upon  the  free  soil  of  our  noble 
State,  consecrated  by  a  most  solemn  compact  to 
perpetual  freedom  ;  that  light  disclosing  to  view 
at  tlto  same  moment  the  church  spire  and  the 
man-hunter  —  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  are  you 
prepared  upon  your  oaths  to  indorse,  in  the 
name  and  behalf  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  as  a  lawful  and  proper  service 
of  a  just  and  lawful  process  that  nefarious  seiz 
ure,  of  which  this  unhallowed  compact  was  the 
basis  ?  Is  there  one  of  you  who  would  wish 
his  son  to  come  upon  the  witness  stand  of  this 
Court,  and  make  oath  to  such  confessions  as  you 
have  heard  recited  with  great  glee  by  this  most 
unfortunate  child  V  Why,  Gentlemen,  what 
end  will  that  boy  come  to,* if  he  be  so  ripe  for 
ruin  already  ?  A  boy  so  young,  and  already 
an  expert  in  the  vilest  and  meanest  passions 
that  ever  cursed  a  human  heart !  Heady  to  lie 
for  hire  to  any  extent,  and  even  to  crush  the 
hopes  of  this  poor,  illiterate,  honest-hearted, 
confiding  negro,  who,  in  common  with  us  all, 
loves  liberty  better  than  every  thing  else,  and 
would  fight  for  it  to  the  last  gasn.  He  trusts 
Shakespeare  because  he  knows  him  as  a  pro 
fessed  friend :  he  needs  work  to  get  his  bread, 
and  is  exceedingly  grateful  for  the  kind  offer  of 
the  boy,  but  in  the  house  lies  his  friend  disabled, 
and  he  cannot  leave  him  to  suffer.  Very  re 
luctantly  he  declines  the  needed  charity,  that 
he  may  be  an  almoner  to  one  even  more  needy 
than  himself.  But  to  show  something  of  his 
gratitude  to  Shakespeare,  he  volunteers  to  go 
with  him  to  New  Oberlin  in  search  of  a  friend 
who  will  perhaps  perform  the  stipulative  labor. 
Before  they  get  fairly  out  of  town  they  meet 
the  object  of  their  search,  but  he  cannot  go. 
With  surprising  readiness  of  stratagem,  the  lit 


tle  fiend  exclaims,  "Never  mind  then,  John, 
you  've  been  shut  up  in  the  house  with  Frank 
so  long,  let 's  have  a  good  ride  ;  I  '11  bring  you 
back;^'  and  the  poor  black  man,  unable  to 
conceive  of  treachery  coiled  in  such  an  exterior, 
again  overflows  with  thanks  to  his  young  massa, 
and  they  drive  on.  A  mile  or  two  outside,  in 
a  lonely  spot,  with  no  one  in  sight  or  call,  they 
are  driving  leisurely  and  chatting  pleasantly, 
when  poor  trustful  John  wakes  to  the  truth,  as 
the  hell-cats  spring  upon  his  back !  ! 

And  now  they  hurry  him  away  towards 
Wellington,  where  they  may  take  the  train  for 

Columbus The   inquiry  now    arises   who 

made  this  capture  of  John  ?  Was  it  Jennings, 
with  his  power  of  attorney  ?  Why,  Gentle 
men,  it  was  the  man  Lowe,  the  United  States 
deputy-marshal  from  Columbus.  Jennings  was 
not  there.  He  has  told  you  that  he  had  other 
business  on  hand.  He  lay  back  in  Oberlin  till 
the  lad  came  to  tell  him  that  they  had  got  John, 
and  exhibited  the  card  Lowe  gave  him  with  the 
address  of  some  one  with  whom  he  should  cor 
respond  if  there  occurred  a  chance  to  get 
Frank.  Now,  says  the  boy,  "  They  've  got 
him !  I  have  done  my  part  of  the  work,  give 
me  my  pay  !"  And  Jennings  pays  him. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  said  to  be  a 
rescue  at  Wellington.  And  it  is  found  neces 
sary  by  the  District-Attorney  of  the  United 
States  to  call  the  Grand  Inquest  of  the  nation, 
and  institute  a  prosecution  against  the  rescuers, 
and  the  father  of  the  boy  sits  upon  the  Grand 
Jury  and  says  "  a  true  bill"  as  the  indictments 
are  severally  presented  against  the  rescuers  — 
knowing  all  the  while  full  well  by  what  means 
and  instrumentalities  the  negro  was  taken,  and 
with  what  emotions  and  apprehensions  the 
alarmed  citizens  came  together. 

The  negro  is  taken  to  Wellington,  where  his 
captors  dine  at  the  hotel,  and  then  take  him  to 
a  room  on  the  second  floor,  and  thence,  on  the 
motion  of  Jennings,  who  comes  soon  after,  to  a 
more  secure  place  in  the  attic.  And  now,  when 
the  sovereign  people  —  the  great  originators  of 
laws  and  governments  —  come  to  inquire  con 
cerning  the  boy  and  the  character  of  the  cus 
tody  in  which  he  is  held,  how  are  they  an 
swered  ?  They  were  thirsting  for  information ; 
anxious  only  to  know  the  actual  truth  in  the 
premises.  They  knew  that  the  boy  was  last 
seen  passing  out  of  Oberlin  with  Shakespeare 
Boynton  before  he  was  met  in  the  custody  of 
his  captors  on  the  road  to  Wellington.  No 
circumstances  could  be  more  suspicious.  WTell 
might  they  presume  that  foul  means  and  not 
legal  process  had  been  employed.  And  in 
reply  to  their  constant  and  importunate  in 
quiries,  what  information  was  given  them? 
What  information,  up  to  the  very  last  moment 
of  the  Rescue,  when  the  negro  is  alleged  to 
have  been  driven  rapidly  away  toward  Lake 
Erie  in  a  buggy  with  this  defendant  ? 

I  will  read  to  you  certain  parts  of  the  tes 
timony. 


OBERLIX-WKLLINGTON  RESCUE. 


79 


Jennings  says:  "The  Sheriff  came  and 
wanted  to  see  our  authority  for  arresting  the 
bov,  and  we  showed  it  to  him." 

ifow  the  "  sheriff"  proves  to  have  been  the 
constable,  Meacham,  for  there  was  no  "  sheriff" 
about.  The  constable,  who  had  a  warrant  for 
the  apprehension  of  the  kidnappers.  You 
recollect  how  the  warrant  was  obtained.  Now 
Meacham  had  a  peculiar  interest  in  knowing 
by  what  authority  they  held  the  boy.  Meacham 
says  he  did  go  up,  as  Jennings  has  averred,  and 
inquired  for  their  authority,  and  he  says  the 
warrant  was  shown  him  by  deputy-marshal 
Lowe,  and  the  warrant  alone.  Now  do  not 
mistake  this,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury ;  the  au 
thority  was  legally  called  for,  and  they  pro 
duced  the  warrant  from  Commissioner  Chitten- 
den  of  Columbus,  and  the  warrant  only.  It 
was  exhibited  as  their  authority  for  holding  the 
negro  in  custody. 

But  we  do  not  stop  here  :  Joseph  H.  Dick- 
son,  the  lawyer,  and  I  believe  the  only  lawyer 
in  Wellington,  formerly  prosecuting  attorney 
of  Lorain  County,  went  up,  not  of  his  own 
motion,  but  sent  for  by  Lowe  as  a  man  learned 
in  the  law,  to  come  to  the  room  and  see  by 
what  authority  they  held  John  there.  This 
was  the  very  object  of  his  mission.  Now  is  it 
to  be  supposed  for  one  moment  that  this  man 
was  such  an  ignoramus  that  he  did  n't  know  a 
power  of  attorney  £-om  a  warrant  ?  Why, 
Gentlemen,  Mr.  Dickson  swears  to  you  without 
the  least  equivocation,  that  Mr.  Lowe  took  him 
into  a  side  room  alone,  and  showed  him  the 
warrant  as  their  authority  for  holding  the 
negro,  and  neither  shmced  nor  mentioned  any 
other  authority  whatsoever.  That  he  saw  no 
power  of  attorney,  and  never  heard  of  a  power 
of  attorney  till  he  heard  of  it  in  this  Court- 
Room,  after  he  had  been  summoned  here  as  a 
witness.  And  after  this  exhibition  of  authority 
Lowe  asks  Dickson  to  go  out  and  proclaim 
what  he  has  seen  to  the  crowd,  and  use  his  in 
fluence  to  persuade  them  in  view  of  this  au 
thority  to  disperse,  and  allow  him  to  continue 
his  journey. 

•But  we  don't  stop  here.  Mr.  Patton  comes 
forward,  a  gentleman  who  has  been  so  highl) 
complimented  by  the  counsel  for  the  Govern 
ment,  as  a  man  of  extraordinary  placidity  o 
temper,  a  man  of  integrity  and  good  manners 
in  short,  a  model  for  all  the  young  men  of  Ober 
I'm ;  and  who  behaved  so  wisely,  that  had  hi 
counsels  been  followed,  there  would  have  been 
no  rescue,  and  no  violation  of  law ;  one  wh 
can  be  relied  on  to  protect  the  institutions  an 
statutes  of  his  country,  in  all  times  of  danger,  an< 
I  am  very  glad  there  is  one  man  in  Oberlii 
who  can  be  depended  upon  besides  Mr.  WAack 
[Laughter.]  Mr.  Patton  comes  forward  am 
corroborates  every  word  of  Mr.  Dickson's  test: 
mony.  He  says  that  Lowe  took  him  aside  an 
showed  him  his  warrant,  as  the  authority  fo 
holding  the  boy,  and  said  nothing  of  any  othe 
authority.  And  farther  he  told  Patton  that  h 


would  go  down  and  read  his  authority  to  the 
rowd,  if  he  could  be  protected  ;  and  if  they 

were  at  all  reasonable  they  would  then,  of 
ourse,  disperse.  Mr.  Patton  volunteered  to  be 
nswerable  for  his  safe  return,  and  they  went 
.own.  For  what  purpose?  To  show  the 
lower  of  attorney  ?  Not  a  bit  of  it.  To  read 
he  warrant,  and  the  warrant  only.  They 

mounted  the  steps  of  the  drug  store,  a  little 
outh  of  the  hotel,  and  Patton,  mark  it,  Patton 
ead  the  warrant  to  the  crowd,  in  Lowe's  name, 
standin  beside  him  and  authorizing  it  to 


)e  read  as  the  authority  of  the  party  for  holding 
ohn.  Now  can  this  man  Patton,  who  himself 

;ead  that  authority  to  the  crowd,  be  mistaken  ? 

And  yet  he  tells  you  that  he  read  the  warrant  and 

he  warrant  only,  and  that  he  never  so  much,  as 
eard  of  a  power  of  attorney  until  it  was  presented 

0  the  Court  in  the  opening  of  this  trial,  by  the 
district-  Attorney.     And  while  Mr.  Patton  was 

reading  this  warrant,  the  crowd  made  a  rush  at 
he  front  door,  which,  being  speedily  seconded 
3y  a  rush  at  the  back  door,  was  successful,  and 
;he  boy  was  brought  down. 

And  now  I  put  it  to  you,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  as  the  plainest  possible  question  of  fact, 
whether  this  defendant  can  be  chargeable  with 
a  guilty  knowledge  that  this  arrest  was  made, 
and  this  custody  sanctioned  under  and  by  vir- 
:ue  of  the  power  of  attorney,  when  in  fact,  no 
such  authority  was  made  known  at  any  time 
during  that  day  ?  With  the  facts  before  them 
as  they  are,  I  ask  the  Jury  to  say  that  the  active 
nstrumentality  by  which  this  boy  was  arrested 
and  held,  was  the  warrant,  and  not  the  power 
of  attorney  ;  and  that  the  person  arresting  was 
not  Anderson  Jennings  the  agent,  but  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  the  Deputy  United  States  Marshal. 
And  I  say  to  your  Honor,  that  if  there  was  a 
warrant  there,  and  the  arrest  was  made  by  it, 
and  yet  it  has  not  been  produced  in  this  Court, 
the  only  presumption  is  that  the  warrant  was 
defective,  and  the  District-  Attorney  dare  not  let 
it  see  the  light,  and  so  I  charge  it  home  upon  him. 

1  say  it  was  an  infamous  hoax,  palmed  off  upon 
the  people  at  Wellington.     The  names  of  Lowe 
and  Davis  were  called  among  the  witnesses, 
and  Chittenden,  the  Commissioner  himself,  sat 
here  in  Court,  and  yet  it  has  not  been  deemed 
advisable  to  make  one  solitary  reference  to  the 
warrant,  or  to  these  witnesses,  who  are  alleged 
to  have  issued  and  served  it.     The  warrant  be 
ing  defective,  the  action  of  the  officers  under  it 
was  illegal,  and  makes  them  responsible  to  the 
law  ;  and  it  strikes  me  that  they  are  in  a  fair  way 
to  get  their  deserts. 

The  instant  the  authority  by  which  the  negro 
was  arrested  and  held,  proves  to  be  a  sham,  the 
indictment  falls  to  the  ground.  The  individuals 
who  effected  the  rescue,  not  only  stand  inno 
cent  of  the  charge  of  a  violation  of  law,  but 
challenge  the  plaudits  of  every  human  heart. 
For  it  is  not  claimed  here  that  these  men  are  to 
be  punished  for  resisting  kidnappers,  who  failed 
to  observe  even  the  easy  conditions  of  the  act 


80 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


of  1850!     This  defendant  is  charged  in  the  in 
dictment  with  a  violation  of  the  act  of  Congress, 
and  must  be  acquitted  by  you,  Gentlemen,  un 
less  you  find  him  guilty  according  to  the  letter 
of  the  law.     The  courts  have  held,  that  a  per 
son  is  guilty  of  knowingly  rescuing  a  fugitive, 
if  they  rescue  him  without  availing  themselves 
of  whatever  means  may  be  within  their  reach 
for  ascertaining   his   actual  status.     Well,  for 
three  entire  hours  this  assemblage  pressed  their 
inquiries,  sending  by  magistrates,  lawyers,  col 
lege  students,  citizens  of  age  and  respectability, 
and  every  one  brought  back  the  same  answer : 
"  He  is  held  by  a  United  States  Marshal,  under 
and  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  issued  by  a  United^ 
States  Commissioner  at  Columbus"    It  is  not 
shown  that  this  defendant  made  in  person  such 
inquiries,  or  received  directly  or  indirectly  any 
information  in  answer  to  the  inquiries  made  by 
others :  we  are  willing  to  accept  the  worst  the 
Prosecution  charge,  that  he  heard  the  answers 
brought  to  the  crowd.     We  would  be  glad  to 
claim  it ;  for  nothing  could  more  effectually  re 
quire  his  acquittal  at  your   hands.     And  the 
Government  have  found  themselves  so  pressed 
under  the  burden  of  this  part  of  their  own  tes 
timony,  that  they  were  fain  to  recall  Jennings 
and  Mitchell  to  bolster  up  a  well-nigh  hopeless 
case.    Well,  Jennings  is  a  famous  man  by  whom 
to  bolster  up  a  failing  cause  !     The  man  who 
made  two  journeys  from  Kentucky  to  Oberlin 
to  catch  John,  "just  from  a  sense  of  duty,  and 
a  feeling  of  neighborly  kindness,  without  the 
expectation  of  so  much  reward  as  the  payment 
of  his  travelling  expenses ! "     He  was  inquired 
of  whether  he  contracted  with  Bacon  for  any 
pecuniary  compensation  for  all  this  trouble,  and 
swore  positively  that  nothing  was  said  by  either 
of  them   about  a  money  consideration.      But 
Bacon  testified  differently,  and  on  being  asked 
the  same  question,  swore  —  to  the  truth,  un 
doubtedly  ;  he  seemed  to  be  a  very  candid  man 
in  his  testimony,  and  if  any  man  was  to  have 
his  slave  restored  to  his  possession,  I  should  as 
soon  it  should  be  him  as  any  man,  judging  from 
his  appearance — Bacon  swore  positively  that 
there  was  a  contract,  by  which  he  became  obli 
gated  to  give  Jennings  $500,  or  one  half  the 
boy  would  sell  for,  provided  he  brought  him 
back,  and  otherwise  he  was  to  have  nothing. 
So  Jennings  is  put  upon  the  stand  again  to  take 
back  and  correct  his  former  explicit  testimony, 
but  will  not  do  it  after  all.     He  says  Bacon  did 
remark  something  about  his  having  offered  in  a 
general  way  to  give  half  what  the  nigger  woulc 
sell  for  to  anybody  thai  would  catcbf  him,  but 
did  not  speak  in  a  way  that  opened  the  offer  to 
him,  or  make  any  other  proposition  whatever 
tlmt  there  positively  was  no  such  bargain  as  Ba 
con  swore  to.     And  so  Mr.  Jennings  is  an  ex 
cellent  witness  to  contradict  the  dozen  disinter 
ested  witnesses    from  Wellington.     Jenningi 
says,  "  he  was  present  at  the  conversation  be 
tween   Lowe  and  Dickson.      They  were  no1 
talking  about  the  warrant,  but  about  the  power 


•>f  attorney  !  Dickson  said  he  was  not  conver- 
ant  with  that  sort  of  papers  —  (an  ex-District- 
Attorney)  —  and  did  n't  know  whether  it  need- 
d  a  seal  or  not  —  (there  was  the  broad  seal 
>f  Mason  County  before  him)  —  and  Lowe 
aid  it  was  not  customary  for  such  papers  to 
lave  seals ;  and  Dickson  said  he  did  n't  know 
is  it  was  ! "  Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  how 
many  hundred  men  like  Jennings  need  swear 
x>  so  transparent  a  falsehood,  before  you  would 
>elieve  it  ?  If  Mr.  Jennings  was  the  most  repu- 
able  man  in  the  United  States,  you  would  n't 
>elicve  him  when  he  made  such  a  statement  as 
hat.  You  would  say,  he  must  certainly  be  mis- 
aken.  And  Jennings  was  but  a  third  party, 
)y  his  own  testimony.  Dickson  talked  with 
L,owe,  not  with  Jennings,  nor  with  Mitchell. 

But  they  don't  stop  here.  Mitchell  is  re 
called.  And  he  says,  he  himself  had  the  con 
versation  with  Dickson  !  Dickson  says,  he 
>eing  sent  for,  as  the  messenger  told  him,  by 
the  parties  having  the  negro  in  custody,  went 
up ;  that  Lowe  came  forward  to  meet  him  — 
as  it  seems  he  did  whenever  any  one  came  in 
—  and  introduced  himself  by  name  as  an 
United  States  marshal  from  Columbus;  and 
that  Lowe  taking  him  alone  into  a  private 
room,  showed  him  the  warrant  directed  to 
limself,  and  Lowe  told  him  that  he  by  virtue  of 
that  warrant  had  the  negro  in  his  custody  and 
must  return  him  before  the  commissioner,  and 
that  Lowe  replied  to  his  query  about  the  lack 
of  seal,  that  it  was  not  customary  for  such 
papers  to  have  a  seal.  But  Mr.  Mitchell 
steps  quietly  up  here,  and  contradicts  Mr. 
Dickson,  asserting  that  lie,  Mitchell,  is  the 
individual  with  whom  Mr.  Dickson  held  the 
conversation,  and  not  Lowe !  Does  Mitchell 
mean  to  say  that  he  gave  his  name  to  Dickson 
as  Lowe,  and  claimed  to  be  the  United  States 
Marshal  from  the  Southern  District  ?  If  so, 
how  is  the  case  bettered  by  such  a  confession  ? 
But  I  may  say,  Dickson  undoubtedly  knew 
with  whom  he  was  conversing,  and  what  paper 
he  read.  And  I  apprehend  that  the  Govern 
ment  will  find  it  difficult  to  induce  you  to  give 
credit  to  the  testimony  offered  to  impeach  him. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  if  it  be  true  that  this 
negro  was  apprehended  and  held  in  custody  at 
Wellington  under  and  by  virtue  of  this  warrant, 
which  the  District- Attorney  cannot  predicate 
his  indictment  upon,  and  which  he  dare  not 
produce  in  Court,  is  there  any  reason  why  the 
vengeance  of  this  odious  law  should  be  visited 
upon  the  head  of  this  defendant  ? 

Judge  Leavitt  says,  in  the  case  of  Weimer 
against  Sloane,  6  McLean,  267.  "  As  already 
intimated,  the  jury  must  be  satisfied  that  the 
defendant  had  knowledge  that  the  fugitives 
had  been  arrested  and  were  in  custody  at  the 
time  of  his  alleged  interference.  If  the  plain 
tiff's  agent  held  them  without  authority,  they 
were  illegally  detained,  and  no  one  could  hate 
incurred  liability  by  aiding  them  in  their 
escape." 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


81 


The  act  of  Congress  authorizes  the  owner  to 
coine  into  any  county  of  Ohio,  and  arrest  his 
runaway  slave,  and  take  him  before  any  Com 
missioner  or  Federal  judge  in  the  District  in 
which  he  apprehends  him ;  or  he  may  in  the 
first  place  take  out  a  warrant  and  arrest  him ; 
or  the  Commissioner  may  name  some  person  to 
serve  the  warrant ;  or  the  agent,  having  a  legal 
power  of  attorney  may  do  the  same  thing. 

But  lie  must  be  governed  by  the  one  process  or 
the  other.  He  cannot  arrest  by  the  warrant 
and  hold  by  the  power  of  attorney,  or  vice 
versa.  If  he  obeys  the  precept,  in  person  or 
by  the  hands  of  an  officer  acting  in  his  pres 
ence,  under  his  direction,  so  far  as  to  arrest  in 
accordance  with  it,  he  cannot  then  draw  back, 
but  must  hold  the  fugitive  in  obedience  to  its 
farther  injunction,  and  release  him  before  the 
Commissioner  as  it  also  enjoins ;  for,  if  he  ac 
cepts  its  authority  at  all,  he  is  bound  by  it 
until  it  is  obeyed  to  the  last  letter,  and  he  dis 
charged  from  its  control  by  the  Commissioner 
who  issued  it  Now  I  say  to  the  Court,  that 
here  was  a  gross  mistake  made  by  these  parties, 
in  the  very  inception  of  this  proceeding.  A 
warrant  was  issued  by  a  Commissioner  in  the 
Southern  District,  while  the  fugitive  was  to  be 
apprehended  in  the  Northern  District,  of  Ohio. 
The  Deputy-Marshal,  if  he  had  power  to  pro 
ceed  with  that  warrant  into  the  Northern  Dis 
trict,  had  no  power,  under  the  Act  of  1850,  to 
take  his  prisoner  into  the  Southern  District 
until  he  was  taken  before  the  officer  in  the 
Northern  District,  who  should  have  issued  the 
warrant.  The  law  is  imperative  upon  this 
point.  There  is  no  possible  mistake  about  it. 
He  must  be  taken  before  the  Commissioner  in 
the  District  where  he  is  apprehended.  We 
will  read  the  law.  The  sixth  Section  is  as 
follows :  — 

"  The  Commissioners  above  named  shall  have 
concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  Judges  of  the 
Circuit  and  District  Courts  of  the  United  States 
in  their  respective  circuits  and  districts  within 
the  several  States ;  and  the  Judges  of  the  Su 
perior  Courts  of  the  Territories,  severally  and 
collectively,  in  term  time  and  vacation." 

The  eighth  Section  reads :  — 

"  When  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
has  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  escape  into 
another  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
the  person  or  persons  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or 
attorney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney 
in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under 
the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  court  of  the 
State  or  Territory  in  which  the  same  may  be 
executed,  may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugitive 
person,  either  by  procuring  a  warrant  from 
some  one  of  the  Courts,  Judges,  or  Commis 
sioners  aforesaid,  of  the  proper  Circuit,  District, 
or  County,  for  the  apprehension  of  such  fugi 
tive  from  service  or  labor,  or  by  seizing  and 
arresting  such  fugitive,  when  the  same  can  be 

11 


done  without  process,  and  by  taking  or  causing 
such  person  to  be  taken  forthwith  before  such 
Court,  Judge,  or  Commissioner,  whose  duty  it 
shall  be  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of  such 
claimant,"  etc. 

Well,  that  authority  would  be  Judge  McLean, 
of  the  Seventh  Circuit,  or  his  Honor,  Judge 
Willson,  of  the  Northern  District,  or  some  one 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Northern  District. 
So  that  if  they  had  intended  to  make  an  arrest 
under  the  warrant,  it  was  their  duty  to  return 
him  within  the  Northern  District.  They  could 
not  take  him  before  the  Commissioner  at  Co 
lumbus.  They  might  with  the  same  propriety 
take  him  before  the  Commissioner  at  Newport 
or  Covington,  Kentucky. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  I  am  now  draw 
ing  near  the  final  discharge  of  the  duty  which 
has  been  cast  upon  me  by  the  Defendant.  It 
has  been  an  unpleasant  one  from  the  outset.  It 
is  one  which  it  will  probably  never  fall  to  my 
lot  to  undertake  again.  I  have  availed  myself 
of  the  indulgence  of  your  Honor  to  express 
myself  fearlessly,  frankly,  and  fully.  I  am 
sorry  that  I  am  forced  to  differ  so  widely  from 
many  who  are  highly  distinguished  in  all  the 
learning  of  the  law.  I  know  that  my  own  opin 
ions  have  no  official  sanction,  and  can  therefore 
weigh  but  little  by  the  side  of  the  authoritative 
decisions  found  in  the  books.  But  it  is  none 
the  less  my  duty  to  speak  as  an  advocate,  and 
my  right  as  a  citizen,  to  give  the  results  of  my 
study  and  reflection. 

I  have  said  that  slavery  is  like  a  canker,  eat 
ing  out  the  vitals  of  our  liberties,  and  that  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  be 
come  the  impregnable  fortress  and  bulwark  of 
slavery  :  I  now  say  that  unless  the  knife  or  the 
cautery  be  applied  to  the  speedy  and  entire  re 
moval  of  the  diseased  part,  we  shall  soon  lose 
the  name  of  freedom,  as  we  have  already  lost 
the  substance,  and  be  unable  longer  to  avoid 
confessing  that  TYRANTS  ARE  OUR  MASTERS. 
This  man  cannot  be  found  guilty  of  the  offence 
charged  in  the  indictment  upon  the  testimony 
that  has  been  offered.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
this.  But  had  the  testimony  been  sufficient  to 
sustain  the  indictment,  and  he  thus  become 
amenable  to  this  unconstitutional  and  infamous 
enactment,  he  would  claim  to  have  his  name  on 
the  same  page  of  history  with  those  who  have 
suffered  for  righteousness'  sake. 

And  now,  sir,  as  to  the  plain  unconstitution- 
ality  of  this  odious  act ;  I  know  full  well,  as  I 
have  already  repeatedly  said,  what  the  decisions 
of  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  Nation  have  been 
with  reference  to  it ;  and  I  know  as  well  the 
deference  which  in  all  ordinary  cases  is  due 
from  tribunals  of  inferior  jurisdiction  to  its  rul 
ings.  But,  sir,  I  hold  that  so  glaringly  unjust  a 
decision  as  the  affirmation  of  the  constitution 
ality  of  this  act  can  bind  no  one  ;  and  had  I  the 
distinguished  honor  to  occupy  the  seat  which  is 
so  eminently  filled  by  your  Honor,  full  long 
should  I  hesitate  before  I  pronounced  that  to- 


82 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


be  law,  which  so  clearly  contf  avenes  the  solemn 
compact  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  superior 
Ordinance  of  1 78  7,  wantonly  violates  every  per 
sonal  right  of  the  citizen,  and  stains  with  a  foul 
blot  the  statute  books  of  our  country.  I  should 
feel  bound  to  pronounce  the  Fugitive  law  of 
1850  utterly  unconstitutional,  without  force,  and 
void ;  though  in  thus  doing,  I  should  risk  an 
impeachment  before  the  Senate  of  my  coun 
try  ;  and,  sir,  should  such  an  impeachment  work 
my  removal  from  office,  I  should  proudly  em 
brace  it  as  a  greater  honor  than  has  yet  fallen 
to  the  lot  of  any  Judicial  officer  of  these  United 
States ! 

NINTH  BAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
District- Attorney's  Argument. 

Judge  BELDEN  did  not  know  whether  to  ad 
dress  the  court,  the  jury,  or  the  audience.  For 
three  days  has  the  crowd  been  addressed ;  not 
the  court,  not  the  jury.  Are  we  in  a  dream  ? 
are  we  in  a  court  of  justice  ?  or  are  we  in  a 
political  hustings  ?  If  that  is  so,  all  counsel 
has  to  do  is  to  ask  the  jury  how  they  expect  to 
vote.  Here  are  the  Saints  of  Oberlin,  Peck, 
Plumb,  Fitch,  to  which  are  to  be  added  Saints 
Spalding  and  Riddle,  and  sub-saint  Bush- 
nell  —  all  saints  of  the  Higher  Law.  When  it 
comes  to  pass  that  we  take  a  cause  from  the 
jury  and  appeal  to  the  crowd  we  had  better 
disband.  Sad  will  be  our  condition  then. 

The  counsel  commented  very  severely  upon 
what  he  called  the  clap-trap  argument  of  the 
white  boy  brought  in  to  get  up  a  scene.  He 
pronounced  the  scene  the  most  disgraceful  he 
had  seen  in  a  court  of  justice.  This  was  their 
constitutional  argument !  And  their  constitu 
tional  argument  was  continued  by  reading  reso 
lutions  passed  in  this  city  in  1850  —  and  read 
for  no  purpose  but  to  stab  this  Court ;  to  stab 
his  Honor  upon  the  bench  ;  read  by  a  man  who 
knew,  or  ought  to  have  known  that  the  resolu 
tions  were  a  libel  on  the  opinions  of  the  Judge, 
and  were  not  his  sentiments ;  such  arguments 
will  not  weigh  a  feather,  and  such  demagoguery 
must  fail,  though  you  had  a  thousand  Probate 
or  Crowbait  Courts,  and  a  boy  to  exhibit  before 
you. 

At  the  meeting  referred  to,  Messrs.  Hitch 
cock,  Foote,  and  Bolton  were  appointed  a  com 
mittee  to  examine  the  law  and  report  at  a  future 
meeting  as  to  its  constitutionality,  and  the  chair 
man,  after  holding  the  resolutions  some  two 
months,  came  to  the  conclusion  the  law  was 
constitutional,  and  no  report  was  ever  made. 
What  the  gentlemen  and  Saints  of  Oberlin 
called  Higher  Law  he  called  Devil's  Law. 

Sam  Johnson  wrote  that  the  Higher  Law 
was  the  law  of  one's  country.  Your  Higher 
Law,  as  interpreted  by  the  Saints  of  Oberlin  is 
just  that  law  which  makes  every  man's  con 
science  and  private  opinion  his  guide.  Such 
doctrine  would  make  chaos,  and  until  all  men 
have  the  same  conscience,  same  control  of  pas 


sion,  don't  talk  of  Higher  Law  as  God's  Law  ; 
it  is  Devil's  Law,  and  it  would  make  a  Hell  upon 
earth.  Higher  Law  comes  in  and  upturns 
government  because  there-  is  slavery;  it  has 
piety  and  conscience  for  the  black  man,  but 
devil  take  the  white  man. 

Judge  Belden  then  argued  the  question  of  the 
constitutional  power  to  pass  laws  to  enforce  a 
Fugitive  Law ;  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Con 
stitution  admit  of  such  law.  Counsel  on  other 
side  forgot  to  say  that  Washington  recom 
mended  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1 793,  which  is 
actually  the  law  of  1850,  and  it  was  passed  with 
only  seven  dissenting  votes,  and  until  abolition, 
Higher  Law  and  Devil  Law  came  in  vogue  to 
refuse  the  jails,  to  strike  down  officials,  the  law 
was  enforced.  Judge  Belden  entered  into  a 
review  of  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster  upon  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.  That  law  was  a  peace- 
offering  made  by  Clay,  Webster,  Fillmore,  and 
others.  In  the  midst  of  agitation  and  lawless 
ness  this  law  was  passed  by  the  great  lights  of 
the  country,  signed  by  Mr.  Fillmore,  and  sanc 
tioned  by  Webster,  the  lover  of  law.  Higher 
Law  people  run  into  the  predicament  of  free 
love  and  infidelity.  If  St.  Peck  and  St.  Plumb 
"go  off"  on  this  law,  he  would  advise  them  to 
go  where  some  good  man  preaches  the  Bible  and 
not  politics.  Do  you  teach  the  Bible  at  Oberlin, 
or  do  you  point  out  the  spires  of  the  churches 
as  hell  poles  ?  The  counsel  then  went  on  to 
show  what  the  state  of  the  world  was  when 
Christ  came  ;  many  were  in  bondage,  and  not 
a  word  was  said  against  it ;  Christ  denounced 
idolatry,  polygamy,  but  not  a  word  against 
slavery.  He  did  not  tell  them  of  a  Higher  Law 
as  against  the  laws  of  the  land.  He  said,  ob 
serve  the  law  of  the  land,  render  to  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar's,  to  woman  and  man,  to 
slave  and  free.  If  these  saints  of  Oberlin  had 
half  as  much  piety  as  the  poor  slaves,  their 
masters  and  mistresses,  it  would  be  well  as  be 
tween  them  and  their  God.  According  to 
Higher  Law  we  should  turn  our  wives  and 
children  out  of  the  house. 

Counsel  then  argued  that  the  slaves  were  not 
fit  for  freedom  ;  and  that  there  were  very  few 
white  people  fit  for  self-government,  but  th.e 
whites  can  be  treated  on  an  equality,  although 
not  equal  in  every  respect.  He  argued  the 
unfitness  for  freedom  of  the  slaves,  and  con 
tended  that  there  was  no  perfection,  and  be 
cause  there  were  cases  of  cruelty  in  slavery, 
these  could  not  argue  in  favor  of  freeing  the 
slaves.  The  Judge  went  into  the  history  of 
West  India  emancipation,  and  argued  from 
that  emancipation  that  the  white  race  must 
take  charge  of  the  blacks.  He  then  referred 
to  the  introduction  of  slavery  in  this  country, 
and  argued  that  it  was  a  creature  of  common 
law,  and  not  of  statute,  in  every  colony  of  this 
country ;  and  no  law  was  passed  in  regard  to  it 
for  fifty  years  after  its  introduction  here.  The 
whites  must  predominate  over  the  blacks,  they 
cannot  exist  on  an  equality. 


OBEKLIN-WELLINGTON   RESCUE. 


83 


The  citizen  who  harbors  fugitives  from  labor 
is  a  bad  citizen  ;  he  don't  deserve  the  blessings 
of  this  government. 

The  District- Attorney  then  read  largely 
from  Mr.  Webster's  opinion  on  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  and  the  effect  of  the  law  in  its 
operation.  He  also  read  from  the  letter  of 
some  Englishman  who  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Webster  upon  the  subject  of  slavery. 

[The  Court  intimated  tq  the  counsel  that 
there  was  no  necessity  of  arguing  the  constitu 
tionality  of  the  law.] 

Counsel  proceeded  on  the  facts. 

The  defendant  is  charged  with  rescuing  the 
negro.  Is  he  guilty  of  the  act  ?  Did  he  do  it 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  court  ?  That 's 
the  question.  Did  John  owe  service  to  Bacon  ? 
We  have  been  told  that  Bacon  only  owns  one 
sixth ;  the  proof  is  that  the  father  of  Bacon 
died  without  a  will,  and  the  slaves  were  divided 
by  the  heirs.  The  Court  is  bound  to  take  no 
tice  ex  officio  of  the  laws  of  Kentucky.  The 
ownership  of  John  is  complete,  for  in  addition 
to  Bacon's  is  the  testimony  of  Mitchell  and 
and  Jennings, 

The  next  question  is,  did  John  escape  ? 
Frank,  Dinah,  and  John  escaped  in  the  night. 
AVhere  did  this  negro  go  ?  He  went  to  Ober- 
lin ;  was  there  from  spring  of  '58  to  time  of 
his  rescue.  Prof.  Peck  knew  him,  and  some  of 
the  witnesses  understood  him  to  be  a  fugitive 
slave.  If  he  had  not  been  known  to  be  a 
slave,  there  would  have  been  no  mob  to  rescue 
him.  Was  the  man  whom  they  rescued,  John  ? 
Mitchell  knew  him  to  be  the  nigger  John. 
When  the  Kentuckian  met  him,  the  negro 
went  towards  him  and  recognized  him.  John 
talked  with  a  number,  admitting  he  was  a  slave 
of  Bacon.  Wras  John  in  the  custody  of  Jen 
nings  and  Lowe  V  It  matters  not  whether 
there  was  a  warrant  there  or  not.  Jennings 
was  the  agent  of  the  owner.  The  owner  had 
a  right  to  take  his  slave,  and  take  him  home. 
Judge  B.  then  gave  a  history  of  the  Prigg  case 
in  Pennsylvania. 

Adjourned  till  9  o'clock. 

TENTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 
District- Attorney  BELDEN  continued  his  argu 
ment  by  claiming  that,  according  to  the  com 
mon  law,  a  deputy  could  only  act  in  the  name 
of  the  principal,  and  this  was  incorporated  in 
the  Kentucky  statute ;  therefore  the  power  of 
attorney  in  the  case  was  properly  made  out. 
He  also  claimed  that  it  was  not  necessary  for 
Jennings  to  have  been  present  at  the  time  of 
making  the  capture,  as  he  could  have  legally 
directed  the  matter  from  any  distance,  and  that 
Marshal  Lowe  was  acting  under  such  direc 
tions,  and  not  under  the  warrant.  In  continu 
ance  of  this  argument,  he  gave  notice  that  if 
the  Lorain  county  authorities  should  attempt  to 
arrest  Lowe,  Jennings,  or  Mitchell,  for  viola 
tion  of  the  State  law,  he  should  claim,  with 


I  confidence  of  success,  that  they  were  not  amen- 
I  able  to  State  law,  because  acting  under  the 
power  of  attorney  which  placed  them  beyond 
the  reach  of  State  jurisdiction  in  the  matter. 

He  claimed  that  the  jury  should  take  no  ac 
count  of  the  quibbles  and  technicalities  which 
might  stand  in  the  way  of  a  conviction.  He 
said  that  it  was  perfectly  lawful  and  right  for 
the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  to  follow  the 
negro  to  Oberlin  with  "  Arkansas  toothpicks," 
bowie  knives,  and  revolvers,  if  he  thought  best 
for  the  purpose  of  the  capture. 

The  District- Attorney  claimed  that  full  exhi 
bition  of  the  power  of  attorney  was  made; 
also  that  it  was  immaterial  in  what  manner  the 
negro  was  taken  by  the  Kentuckians,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  he  was  rescued  from  the  imme 
diate  presence  and  control  of  Jennings. 

The  balance  of  the  District- Attorney's  speech 
was  a  recapitulation  of  the  evidence  in  the 
case,  liberally  interspersed  with  attacks  on  the 
opposing  counsel,  imputations  on  the  Press  of 
the  city,  and  abuse  of  the  audience.  The  lan 
guage  and  spirit  of  the  address  were  in  the 
worst  possible  taste,  and  evoked  the  indigna 
tion  of  the  audience,  evinced,  in  one  instance, 
by  unmistakable  hisses.  The  speech  was  con 
cluded  at  11  o'clock,  when  the  case  was  given 
to  the  Jury  by  Judge  WILLSON,  in  the  following 
charge :  — 

CHARGE   OF   THE   COURT. 

There  is  a  preliminary  matter  in  this  case 
(and  with  which  the  Jury  have  nothing  to  do) 
that  should  be  noticed  before  entering  upon  the 
consideration  of  the  principles  of  law,  which 
are  applicable  to  the  issue  of  fact  to  be  tried  by 
the  Jury. 

A  motion  was  made  by  the  defendant  to 
quash  the  indictment,  which  motion  (without 
argument  of  counsel,  or  reasons  expressed  by 
the  Court)  was  overruled,  with  the  understand 
ing,  however,  that  if  at  any  time  the  grounds 
of"  the  motion  should  be  deemed  to  be  well 
founded,  the  case  would  be  withdrawn  from  the 
Jury. 

In  this  motion  to  quash,  the  assigned  causes 
are :  — 

1st.  That  the  indictment  is  found  and  pre 
sented  for  an  alleged  violation  of  an  Act  of 
Congress,  which  Act  is  unconstitutional  and 
void. 

2d.  That  the  pretended  Grand  Jury  which 
found  said  indictment  was  not  legally  empan 
elled,  but  were  selected  and  empanelled  con 
trary  to  law. 

3d.  That  said  indictment  is  defective,  infor 
mal,  and  insufficient  in  law. 

4th.  That  it  does  not  appear  in  said  indict 
ment,  that  said  negro  John  was  legally  held  to 
service,  or  that  he  was  held  to  service  under 
the  laws  of  Kentucky  or  any  other  State  or 
Territory. 

5th.  That  it  does  not  appear  that  the  defend 
ant  knew  him  to  be  held  under  or  by  virtue  of 


84 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


any  law,  nor  that  the  defendant  knew  him  to  be 
lawfully  held  to  service. 

The  2d  Section  of  the  4th  Article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares,  that 
"  no  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another, 
shall  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor;  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due." 

This  provision  of  the  Constitution  is  a  posi 
tive  and  unqualified  recognition  of  the  right  of 
the  owner  in  his  slaves,  unaffected  by  any  State 
Constitution  or  any  State  laws  whatever.  It  is 
a  right  of  property,  and  like  the  ownership  of 
any  other  species  of  property,  it  implies  the 
right  of  seizure  and  recaption.  In  case  of  es 
cape,  the  status  of  the  slave  in  relation  to  his 
owner  cannot  be  changed  by,  or  in  any  way 
qualified,  regulated,  or  controlled  by  the  laws  of 
the  State  to  which  the  slave  flees.  Hence,  all 
the  incidents  of  the  right  of  property  in  the 
owner  attaches.  Under  and  in  virtue  of  the 
Constitution  "  he  is  clothed  (said  Judge  Story) 
with  entire  authority,  in  every  State  in  the 
Union,  to  seize  and  recapture  his  slave,  when 
ever  he  can  do  it  without  any  breach  of  the 
peace,  or  any  illegal  violence." 

This  clause  of  the  Constitution  does  not  stop 
with  a  mere  declaration  of  the  right  in  the  own 
er.  It  also  implies  a  guaranty,  on  the  part  of 
the  national  government,  to  provide  the  mode 
and  secure  the  means  to  make  the  ri^ht  availa 
ble.  It  says  :  "  The  slave  shall  be  delivered  up 
on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due." 

This  imposes  a  specific  duty  upon  the  national 
government :  and  "  when  a  duty  is  enjoined,  the 
power  and  ability  to  perform  it  is  contemplated 
to  exist  on  the  part  01  the  functionaries  to  whom 
it  is  intrusted." 

Accordingly  in  pursuance  of  the  plain  re 
quirements  of  the  national  compact,  Congress 
has  passed  two  laAvs  providing  for  the  recaption 
of  fugitives  from  labor.  One  is  the  act  of  Feb 
ruary  12,  1793,  and  the  other  that  of  Septem 
ber  18,  1850. 

Both  of  these  laws  have  been  the  subject  of 
judicial  exposition  and  interpretation  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  the  for 
mer  in  the  case  of  Prigg  v.  The  Commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania,  16  Peters,  K.  539,  and  the  lat 
ter  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Booth, 
decided  at  the  late  December  Term  of  that 
Court. 

In  each  of  these  cases  the  Supreme  Court 
held  both  acts  of  Congress  referred  to,  to  be 
clearly  constitutional  in  all  their  leading  pro 
visions,  and  free  from  reasonable  doubt  and 
difficulty. 

It  certainly  does  not  become  a  Court  of  in 
ferior  jurisdiction  to  entertain  a  (question  upon 
the  unconstitutionality  of  laws  which  have  been 
fully  considered  and  decided  to  be  in  strict  ac 


cordance  with  the  Constitution  by  the  highest 
judicial  tribunal  of  the  country. 

The  objection  that  the  Grand  Jury  that  pre 
sented  this  indictment,  was  selected  and  em 
panelled  contrary  to  law,  has  no  foundation  in 
fact. 

The  Grand  Jury  were  qualified,  selected,  and 
empanelled  as  required  by  the  4th  rule  of  the 
Circuit  Court,  which  rule  obtains  in  this  Court. 
The  legality  of  that  rule  is  no  longer  an  open 
question  here.  Both  its  legality  and  propriety 
were  fully  affirmed  by  the  Circuit  Court  in  the 
case  of  the  United  States  v.  Joseph  S.  Wilson, 
6  McLean,  604. 

Neither  is  there  any  foundation  for  the  de 
clared  defect  in  the  indictment,  that  the  said 
negro  John  is  not  alleged  to  be  legally  held  to 
service,  or  that  he  is  held  to  service  under  the 
laws  of  Kentucky. 

The  indictment  charges,  that  on  the  first  day 
of  March,  1857,  a  certain  negro  slave,  called 
John,  a  person  held  to  service  and  labor  in  the 
State  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  United  States, 
the  said  John  being  the  property  of  one  John 
G.  Bacon,  of  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  the 
person  to  whom  such  service  and  labor  were 
then  due,  and  so  being  held  to  service,  the  said 
John  did  escape  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  etc. 

This  averment  is  almost  in  the  precise  lan 
guage  of  the  statute.  It  has  been  uniformly 
held  by  the  Federal  Courts,  that  in  indictments 
for  misdemeanors  created  by  statute,  it  is  suffi 
cient  to  charge  the  offence  in  the  language  of 
the  statute.  There  is  not  that  technical  nicety 
required  as  to  form,  which  seems  to  have  been 
adopted  and  sanctioned  by  long  practice  in 
cases  of  felony.  United  States  v.  Mills,  7  Pe 
ters,  R.  142 ;  United  States  v.  Lancaster,  6 
McLean,  431. 

We  are  clearly  of  the  opinion,  that  the  ex 
ceptions  to  this  indictment,  both  as  to  form  and 
matters  of  substance,  were  not  well  taken,  and 
that  the  motion  to  quash  was  properly  over 
ruled.  ( 

The  case,  then,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  goes 
to  you  for  the  determination  of  the  issue  of 
fact :  —  Is  the  defendant  guilty  or  not  guilty  of 
the  offence  with  which  he  stands  charged  in  the 
indictment  ? 

The  indictment  contains  but  a  single  count. 
It  charges  that  on  the  first  day  of  March,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hun 
dred  and  fifty-seven,  a  certain  negro  slave 
called  John,  a  person  held  to  service  and  labor 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  United 
States,  the  said  John  being  the  property  of  one 
John  G.  Bacon,  of  the  said  State  of  Kentucky, 
the  person  to  whom  such  service  and  labor  were 
then  due,  and  the  said  negro  slave  called  John, 
to  wit,  on  the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  so 
being  held  to  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid, 
and  said  service  and  labor  being  due  as  afore 
said,  did  escape  into  another  State  of  the  United 
States,  to  wit,  into  the  State  of  Ohio,  from  the 
said  State  of  Kentucky ;  that  afterwards,  to 


OBERLIN-WELL1NGTON  RESCUE. 


'   85 


•wit,  on  the  first  day  of  October  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight,  one  Anderson  Jennings,  the  agent  and 
attorney  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  duly  au 
thorized  for  that  purpose,  by  power  of  attorney, 
in  writing,  executed  by  the  said  John  G.  Ba 
con,  to  wit,  on  the  4th  day  of  September,  A.  D. 
1858,  and  acknowledged  by  him  on  said  day, 
before  Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  County 
Court  of  the  County  of  Mason,  in  said  State  of 
Kentucky,  and  on  said  day,  certified  by  said 
Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  as  aforesaid,  under 
the  seal  of  said  Mason  County  Court,  the  said 
Robert  A.  Cochran  then  being  a  legal  officer, 
and  the  said  Mason  County  Court  then  being  a 
legal  Court  in  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  in 
which  said  State  said  power  of  attorney  was  ex 
ecuted,  did  pursue  and  reclaim  the  said  negro 
slave,  called  John,  into,  and  in  the  said  State 
of  Ohio,  and  did,  to  wit,  on  the  said  first  day 
of  October,  in  the  year  last  aforesaid,  in  said 
Northern  District  of  Ohio,  and  within  the  ju 
risdiction  of  this  Court,  pursue  and  reclaim  the 
said  negro  slave,  called  John,  he  then  and  there 
being  a  fugitive  person  as  aforesaid,  and  still 
held  to  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  by  then 
and  there,  on  the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid 
at  the  District  aforesaid,  and  within  the  juris 
diction  of  this  Court,  seizing  and  arresting  him 
as  a  fugitive  person  from  service  and  labor, 
from  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  as  aforesaid ; 
and  that  the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  was 
then  and  there,  to  wit,  on  the  day  and'  year 
last  aforesaid,  in  the  said  State  of  Ohio,  at  the 
District  aforesaid,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court,  lawfully,  pursuant  to  the  authority 
of  the  statute  of  the  United  States,  given  and 
declared  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  ar 
rested  in  the  custody  and  under  the  control  of 
the  said  Anderson  Jennings,  as  agent  and  at 
torney  as  aforesaid,  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon, 
to  whom  the  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid  of 
the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  were  then  and 
still  due  as  aforesaid,  together  with  one  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  then  and  there,  lawfully  assisting  him, 
the  said  Anderson  Jennings,  in  the  aforesaid 
arrest,  custody,  and  control  of  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John.  And  the  Jurors  aforesaid  do 
farther  present  and  find  that  Simeon  Bushnell, 
late  of  the  District  aforesaid,  together  with  di 
vers,  to  wit,  two  hundred  other~persons,  to  the 
Jurors  aforesaid  unknown  heretofore,  to  wit, 
on  the  said  first  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight  at  the  District  aforesaid,  and  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  with  force  and  arms, 
unlawfully,  knowingly,  and  willingly,  did  rescue 
the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  then  and  there 
being  pursued  and  reclaimed,  seized  and  ar 
rested,  and  in  the  custody  and  control  aforesaid, 
he,  the  said  negro  slave,  called  John,  being 
then  and  there  a  fugitive  from  and  held  to  ser 
vice  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  from  the  custody  of 
the  said  Anderson  Jennings,  then  and  there  the 
authorized  agent  and  attorney  of  the  said  John 


G.  Bacon  as  aforesaid,  and  the  said  Jacob  K. 
Lowe,  then  and  there  lawfully  assisting  the  said 
Anderson  Jennings  as  aforesaid ;  he,  the  said 
Simeon  Bushnell,  then  and  there,  well  knowing 
that  the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  was  then 
and  there  a  fugitive  person,  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  and  pursued  and  reclaimed, 
seized  and  arrested,  and  held  in  custody  as 
aforesaid ;  to  the  great  damage  of  the  said  John 
G.  Bacon." 

The  law  on  which  this  indictment  is  predi 
cated  is  contained  in  the  6th  and  7th  sections 
of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  September  18,  1850. 

In  the  first  clause  of  section  6  it  is  provided, 
that,  "  when  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor 
in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
has  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  escape  into 
another  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
the  person  or  persons  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or 
attorney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney, 
in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under 
the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  court  of  the 
State  or  Territory  in  which  the  same  may  be 
executed,  may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugi 
tive  person,  either  by  procuring  a  warrant 
from  some  one  of  the  Courts,  Judges,  or  Com 
missioners  aforesaid  of  the  proper  Circuit,  Dis 
trict,  or  County,  for  the  apprehension  of  such 
fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  or  by  seizing 
and  arresting  such  fugitive,  when  the  same  can 
be  done  without  process,  and  by  taking,  or 
causing  such  person  to  be  taken,  forthwith  be 
fore  such  Court,  Judge,  or  Commissioner,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  hear  and  determine  the  case 
of  such  claimant  in  a  summary  manner,"  etc. 

Section  7  declares,  "that  any  person  who 
shall  knowingly  and  willingly  obstruct,  hinder, 
or  prevent  such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney, 
or  any  person  or  persons  lawfully  assisting  him, 
her,  or  them,  from  arresting  such  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  either  with  or  without  process 
as  aforesaid,  or  shall  rescue,  or  attempt  to 
rescue  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor, 
from  the  custody  of  such  claimant,  his  or  her 
agent  or  attorney,  or  other  person  or  persons 
lawfully  assisting  as  aforesaid,  when  so  arrested, 
pursuant  to  the  authority  herein  given  and 
declared  "  (shall  be  subject  to  fine  and  impris 
onment,  etc.)." 

To  effect  a  conviction  of  the  defendant,  the 
material  allegations  in  the  indictment  must  be 
established  in  proof,  and  the  burden  of  proof 
rests  on  the  Government 

These  material  allegations  are,  that  the  negro 
John  was  a  slave,  owing  service  to  John  G.  Ba 
con  in  Kentucky ;  that  said  negro  escaped  from 
Kentucky  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  was  a  fugi 
tive  from  his  master ;  that  he  was  seized  and 
held  by  Anderson  Jennings,  and  his  assistants, 
by  virtue  of  a  power  of  attorney,  lawfully  exe 
cuted  by  said  Bacon,  authorizing  the  capture  of 
the  fugitive ;  and  that  the  defendant,  acting  with 
others  at  Wellington,  knowingly  and  willingly 
rescued  the  slave  from  the  agent  of  the  owner. 


86 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


That  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  exists 
in  Kentucky,  under  the  sanction  of  law,  is  a 
matter  of  which  the  Federal  Courts  take  ju 
dicial  notice.  The  reciprocal  relations  between 
the  National  Government  and  the  several 
States  comprising  the  United  States,  are  not 
foreign,  but  domestic.  Hence  the  Courts  of  the 
United  States  take  judicial  notice  of  all  the 
public  laws  of  the  respective  States,  when  they 
are  called  upon  to  consider  and  apply  them.  It 
is  not  a  question  for  the  Jury  to  determine,  from 
the  evidence,  whether  or  not  slavery  lawfully 
exists  in  Kentucky.  That  is  an  inquiry  which 
belongs  solely  to  'the  Court ;  and  for  the  pur 
poses  of  this  trial,  you  will  regard  slavery  as  a 
municipal  regulation,  lawfully  established  in 
that  State. 

Was  the  negro  John  a  slave,  owing  service  to 
John  G.  Bacon  in  Kentucky  ?  This  is  the  first 
question  of  fact  for  your  determination  from  the 
evidence. 

On  a  question  of  this  kind,  the  right  of  the 
alleged  owner  in  his  slave,  is  to  be  established 
by  the  same  rules  of  evidence  as  in  other  con 
tests  about  the  right  of  property.  Ordinarily,  the 
fact  of  possession  and  notorious  claim  of  owner 
ship,  in  personal  property,  is  sufficient  to  estab 
lish  the  primd  facie  right  of  ownership.  It  was 
declared  by  the  Court,  in  the  case  of  Miller  v. 
Dunnan,  that  the  mere  holding  a  person  in  in 
voluntary  servitude,  and  claiming  ownership,  is 
not  sufficient  primd  facie  evidence  of  right  to 
overcome  the  presumption  arising  from  the 
marks  of  European  descent.  But  that  dark 
complexion,  woolly  head,  and  flat  nose,  with 
possession  and  claim  of  ownership,  do  afford 
primd  facie  evidence  of  the  slavery  and  owner 
ship  charged. 

Here  the  prosecution  claims  to  have  shown, 
by  the  uncontradicted  testimony  of  Bacon, 
Mitchell,  and  Jennings,  that  the  negro  John 
was  held  and  treated  as  a  slave  by  John  G.  Ba 
con  and  his  father ;  that  the  mother  of  this  ne 
gro  was  a  slave  all  her  lifetime,  and  bought  and 
sold  as  such. 

Further  than  this,  the  pedigree  of  the  negro 
and  the  status  of  his  ancestors  were  not  attempt 
ed  to  be  traced.  Nor  was  it  necessary.  For, 
were  it  traced  back  to  the  maternal  ancestor  of 
1 785,  no  better  evidence  would  or  could  be  fur 
nished.  It  then  could  only  be  proved  that  the 
ancestor  was  a  slave,  by  showing  that  she  had 
marks  of  African  descent,  and  was  bought  and 
sold  as  a  slave,  and  held  as  such.  This  is  pre 
cisely  the  evidence  and  the  only  evidence  neces 
sary  to  show  the  slavery  and  service  which  this 
negro  owed  to  his  master. 

It  is  like  any  other  question  of  status  of  the 
relation  of  one  person  to  another,  which  may 
be  shown  by  the  facts  and  circumstances  at 
tending  that  relation.  This  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  familiar  case  of  heirship.  To  establish 
the  fact  that  A.  is  the  heir  of  B.,  it  is  necessa 
ry  to  prove  that  there  was  a  lawful  marriage 
and  cohabitation,  and  B.  the  issue  of  that  mar 


riage.  But  it  is  competent  and  sufficient  evi 
dence  of  the  heirship,  that  B.  treated  and  re 
cognized  A.  as  his  son. 

Upon  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  then, 
the  testimony  of  Bacon,  Mitchell,  and  Jen 
nings  is  competent,  and  if  uncontradicted,  may 
be  deemed  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact,  that 
the  negro  John  was  held  to  service  as  the  slave 
of  John  G.  Bacon,  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky. 

That  this  slave  fled  from  his  master  and  es 
caped  from  Kentucky  into  the  State  of  Ohio, 
is  an  alleged  fact,  about  which  the  testimony 
leaves  but  little  room  for  controversy.  Neither 
can  it  be  seriously  controverted,  that  Bacon 
executed  to  Jennings  a  valid  power  of  attorney, 
duly,  acknowledged  and  certified,  for  the  re 
caption  of  the  slave. 

The  next  question  to  be  determined  by  the 
evidence  is,  did  Jennings  hold  this  fugitive  by 
virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney  at  the  time  of 
the  rescue  ? 

The  statute  provides  that  the  owner  or  his 
agent  authorized  by  power  of  attorney,  "  may 
pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugitive  person,  either 
by  procuring  a  warrant  from  some  one  of  the 
Courts,  Judges,  or  Commissioners  aforesaid,  for 
the  apprehension  of  such  fugitive  from  service 
or  labor,  or  by  seizing  and  arresting  such  fugi 
tive,  when  the  same  can  be  done  without  pro 
cess,  and  by  taking  or  causing  such  person  to  be 
taken  forthwith  before  such  Court,  Judge,  or 
Commissioner,"  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  true,  the  language  of  the  Act  is  in  the 
alternative.  The  fugitive  may  be  seized  and 
arrested  upon  the  warrant,  or  he  may  be  seized 
and  arrested  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attor 
ney.  Both  modes  of  capture  have  the  same 
object,  to  wit,  to  bring  the  fugitive  before  the 
Court  or  Commissioner.  The  person  making 
the  arrest  is  clothed  with  the  same  power  and 
authority  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  He 
may  at  the  same  time  provide  the  means  of 
resorting  to  either  or  both  modes  of  capture. 
Yet,  when  it  is  alleged  in  the  indictment  that 
the  one  or  the  other  was  adopted,  the  allegation 
being  material,  the  proof  must  support  the 
charge. 

You  will,  therefore,  determine  from  the  evi 
dence,  whether  or  not  Jennings  held  the  negro 
John  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney  from 
Bacon,  at  the  time  the  rescue  was  made.  If 
you  find  in  the  affirmative  on  this  proposition, 
then  the  inquiry  is,  was  the  defendant  implica 
ted  in  the  rescue  ? 

If  the  persons  who  constituted  the  assemblage 
at  Wellington  on  the  13th  of  September,  1858, 
had  come  together  for  the  purpose,  or  when 
there,  were  engaged  in  rescuing  a  fugitive  slave 
from  those  authorized  to  capture  and  hold  him 
under  the  statute  of  1850,  they  were  engaged 
in  an  unlawful  act,  and  whatever  was  then  said 
and  done  by  one,  in  the  prosecution  of  the  en 
terprise,  were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes  in 
law,  the  declarations  and  acts  of  all.  To  im 
plicate  each  and  all,  however,  it  must  appear 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


87 


that  there  was  a  concert  of  action  for  the  ac 
complishment  of  an  unlawful  purpose. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  prosecutor,  that  the  evi 
dence  establishes  the  riotous  and  unlawful  char 
acter  of  the  assembly  gathered  in  and  about  the 
hotel  at  Wellington,  m  which  the  negro  was 
confined.  And  the  implication  of  the  defend 
ant  in  the  rescue  is  urged  on  the  ground  that 
the  crowd  in  which  he  mingled  threatened  to 
demolish  the  building,  unless  the  fugitive  was 
surrendered  —  that  the  people  assembled  gave 
angry  demonstrations  of  violence  with  firearms 
in  their  hands,  and  actually  rescued  the  fugitive 
from  his  captors.  And  the  further  fact  is  urged, 
as  showing  concert  of  action  on  the  part  of  the 
defendant  and  the  crowd,  that  his  buggy  was 
stationed  at  a  convenient  distance  to  receive 
the  negro,  that  the  fugitive  was  tumultuously 
placed  in  it,  and  his  escape  effected  by  the  de 
fendant's  driving  rapidly  away. 

These  are  matters  of  evidence  entirely  for 
the  consideration  of  the  jury. 

And  yet,  if  these  facts  are  as  claimed  by  the 
Government  prosecutor,  the  defendant  is  not 
guilty  of  the  offence  with  which  he  stands 
charged  in  the  indictment,  unless  it  is  proved 
that  he  acted  knowingly  and  willingly.  In 
other  words,  it  must  appear  that  he  knew  the 
negro  was  a  fugitive  from  labor  and  was  law 
fully  detained  by  the  person  or  persons  who 
held  him  captive ;  or  that  he  acted  under  such 
circumstances  as  to  show  that  he  might  have 
had  such  knowledge  by  exercising  ordinary  pru 
dence. 

Usually,  a  man  is  presumed  to  know  and  in 
tend  the  legal  consequences  of  his  own  acts. 
It  will  not  answer  to  say  that  he  can  close  his 
eyes  and  ears  against  the  means  of  knowledge, 
and  rush  deaf  and  blindly  into  the  performance 
of  that  which  the  law  declares  a  crime.  Were 
it  otherwise,  excesses  against  legal  process  in 
many  cases  might  be  indulged  in  with  impunity. 
Criminals  might  be  rescued  from  lawful  caption, 
on  the  plea  of  mistake  or  misapprehension. 
The  language  of  the  statute  should  receive  a 
reasonable  interpretation. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  have,  as  briefly  as 
possible,  given  you  the  rules  of  law  which  are 
deemed  to  be  applicable  to  the  case.  The  evi 
dence  submitted,  I  leave  in  your  hands  without 
any  comment,  as  the  questions  of  fact  are  for 
your  determination. 

This  case,  like  every  other  which  is  tried  in 
a  court  of  justice,  should  be  divested  of  every 
thing  that  is  extraneous.  It  is  to  be  determined 
according  to  the  law  and  the  testimony  as  de 
livered  to  you  in  Court. 

Much  has  been  eloquently  said  by  learned 
counsel  that  would  be  entitled  to  great  weight 
and  consideration  if  addressed  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  or  to  an  ecclesiastical  tri 
bunal,  where  matters  of  casuistry  are  discussed 
and  determined. 

It  is  your  duty  to  take  the  case  and  return  a 
verdict  according  to  the  evidence. 


After  the  above  charge  was  delivered,  Mr. 
BACKUS  arose  and  said  :  — 

The  defendant  asks  the  Court  to  charge  the 
Jury, 

1st.  That  in  order  to  warrant  a  conviction  in 
this  case,  the  testimony  must  show  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  defendant,  as  charged 
in  said  indictment,  did  "  unlawfully,  knowingly, 
and  willingly"  rescue,  or  assist  in  rescuing  the 
negro  John  from  the  custody  of  the  said  An 
derson  Jennings,  the  said  Jennings  then  and 
there  having  him  in  his  custody  as  the  agent  of 
the  said  John  G.  Bacon ;  but  that  if  the  testi 
mony  shows  that  the  custody  was  in  Lowe  by 
virtue  of  a  legal  warrant,  or  leaves  it  in  doubt 
whether  said  John  was,  at  the  time  of  such 
rescue,  in  the  custody  of  said  Jennings,  as  such 
agent,  or  in  that  of  said  Lowe,  then  and  there 
claiming  to  hold  him  by  virtue  of  such  legal 
process,  then  the  defendant  should  be  ac 
quitted. 

2d.  That  such  custody  could  not,  at  the  same 
time  be  in  said  Jennings  as  such  agent,  and  in 
said  Lowe,  either  under  and  by  virtue  of  legal 
process,  or  by  virtue  of  any  other  claim. 

3d.  That  the  power  of  attorney  in  question, 
in  order  to  be  valid,  must  be  shown  to  have 
been  acknowledged  as  alleged  in  said  indict 
ment,  by  said  Bacon,  before  Robert  A.  Coch- 
ran,  Clerk  of  the  County  Court  of  the  county 
of  Mason  in  said  State  of  Kentucky ;  that  the 
said  Cochran  certified,  from  his  own  personal 
knowledge,  to  the  identity  of  said  Bacon.  But 
that  if  the  acknowledgment  was  made  in  no 
other  way  than  by  the  appearance  of  said 
Bacon  before  some  other  person,  whether  such 
person  were  or  were  not  authorized  by  the 
laws  of  Kentucky,  to  do  whatever  the  said 
Cochran,  as  such  clerk,  could  legally  do  under 
the  laws  of  Kentucky,  then  the  power  of  attor 
ney  was  not  acknowledged  before  said  Cochran, 
and  this  material  averment  in  the  indictment 
is  not  proved,  and  the  defendant  must  be  ac 
quitted. 

.  4th.  That  although  the  deputy  clerk,  who  is 
shown  to  have  been  the  person  before  whom 
the  said  Bacon  in  fact  appeared  for  the  purpose 
of  making  this  acknowledgment,  may  by  the 
laws  of  Kentucky,  be  a  "legal  officer,"  and 
therefore  authorized  by  the  Act  of  Congress  to 
take  such  acknowledgment;  yet  the  acknowl 
edgment  in  this  case  neither  purports  to  have 
been  made  before  him,  nor  is  it  averred  so  to 
have  been  made  in  this  indictment ;  and  there 
fore  such  authority  can  add  nothing  to  the  va 
lidity  of  this  acknowledgment. 

5th.  That  the  acknowledgment  in  this  case  is 
void,  because  it  is  not  certified  under  the  seal 
of  the  officer  before  whom  it  purports,  through 
a  deputy,  to  have  been  taken. 

6th.  That  in  order  to  find  that  John  was  a 
slave,  and  owed  service  to  said  Bacon,  they 
must  find  from  the  testimony,  that  by  the  laws 
of  Kentucky,  a  person  in  the  condition  of  John 
at  the  time  of  his  alleged  escape,  might  be 


88 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


legally  held  to  service  as  a  slave;  that  John 
was,  in  fact,  the  slave  of  said  Bacon  at  the 
time  of  such  escape  and  of  said  alleged  rescue ; 
but  that,  if  the  testimony  satisfies  them  that 
said  John  G.  Bacon  derived  his  title  to  said 
John  by  descent  from  his  father,  who  died  leav 
ing  five  other  children,  all  of  whom  are  still 
living,  the  presumption  is,  in  the  absence  of 
testimony  showing  that  a  division  had  taken 
place  of  the  property  of  their  father,  that 
John  was,  at  the  time  of  his  escape,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  alleged  rescue,  the  joint  property 
of  all  the  children ;  and,  therefore,  that  the 
averment  of  ownership  is  unproved,  and  the 
prosecution  must  fail. 

7tlj.  That  before  the  defendant  can  be  held 
liable  for  the  acts  and  declarations  of  those  con 
stituting  the  assemblage  of  persons,  who  are 
claimed  to  have  been  instrumental  in  the  rescue 
of  John,  the  jury  must  be  satisfied  that  all  of 
that  assemblage,  whose  acts  were  given  in  evi 
dence,  were  there  for  the  common  purpose  of 
illegally  obstructing  the  claimant  in  the  reclama 
tion  of  John,  and  that  the  said  defendant  there 
and  then  was  acting  in  concert  with  them. 

8th.  That  if  the  defendant,  in  his  connection 
with  the  rescue  of  John,  was  honestly  of  the 
opinion  that  John  had  been  illegally  seized  upon, 
and  was  being  carried  away  in  violation  of  law ; 
and  the  claim  of  right  so  to  seize  and  carry  him 
away,  were  given,  by  those  who  had  him  in 
custody,  to  be  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  in  the 
hands  of  said  Lowe,  then  the  defendant  cannot 
be  convicted  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indict 
ment. 

In  answer  to  the  above,  the  Court  gave  the 
following  special  instructions:  — 

1st  Request —  The  proof  must  show,  as  I  have- 
already  said  to  you,  that  the  fugitive  was  held 
by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney,  and  not  by 
virtue  of  any  other  legal  authority  or  process. 

2d  Request  —  In  legal  contemplation  such 
custody  could  not  be  in  Jennings,  the  attorney, 
and  in  the  marshal,  by  virtue  of  lawful  process, 
at  the  same  moment.  And  it  is  proper  and  im 
portant  for  the  jury  to  refer  to  all  the  testimony 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  any 
legal  process  was  used  in  the  arrest  and  deten 
tion  of  the  negro.  Because,  unless  the  evi 
dence  clearly  shows  that  a  legal  process  was 
used,  the  fugitive  cannot  be  considered  as  held 
by  process  at  all,  and  although  the  slave  might 
have  been  taken  in  the  first  instance  upon  a 
void  warrant,  it  was  nevertheless  competent  for 
the  attorney,  by  virtue  of  his  power,  to  take 
and  control  him  at  any  time  afterwards,  and  in 
Ohio  no  presumption  exists  that  a  man  (black 
or  white)  is  properly  restrained  of  his  freedom, 
except  on  clear  proof  of  legal  authority  for  that 
purpose. 

3d  Request  —  The  power  of  attorney  in  order 
to  be  valid,  must,  unquestionably,  be  shown  to 
be  acknowledged  as  alleged  in  the  indictment. 

It  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  deter 


mine,  whether  William  H.  Richardson  was  or 
was  not  a  deputy  clerk  of  Mason  County  Court 
If  he  was,  his  official  acts  were  the  acts  of  Mr. 
Cochran  who  it  is  admitted,  was  the  clerk  of 
that  Court.  "  Qui  facit  per  aliumfacit  per  se" 
is  a  maxim  that  obtains  everywhere. 

4.ih  Request  —  Was  complied  with. 

5th  Request  — Judge  Willson  refused  to  charge 
as  requested. 

6th  and  7tk  Requests  —  Judge  Willson  refused 
to  give  special  instructions  because  the  points 
were  covered  by  the  regular  charge. 

8th  Request — Refused.  Held  that  the  de 
fendant  was  bound  to  make  inquiry  as  to 
whether  John  was  legally  held  or  not. 

Court  adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 

The  record  of  the  afternoon's  occurrences  is 
so  accurately  given  by  the  Reporter  of  the 
Cleveland  Leader,  that  we  quote  it  entire,  save 
the  last  two  clauses,  for  which  we  substitute  the 
account  of  the  Evening  Herald. 

The  Court  convened  in  the  afternoon  at  2 
o'clock,  and  a  verdict  having  been  agreed  upon 
by  the  Jury,  they  came  in  and  took  their  seats. 
The  prisoner  being  present,  the  question  was 
put  by  the  Court  — 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  have  you  agreed 
upon  a  verdict  ?" 

"  We  have,  your  Honor." 

"  What  is  your  verdict,  Mr.  Foreman  ?" 

"  GUILTY." 

The  room  was  filled  with  spectators,  who 
heard  and  received  the  verdict  with  quietness. 
It  had  been  expected  until  the  last  moment, 
but  when  the  Judge  charged  the  Jury  in  the 
forenoon,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  BACKUS  that  it 
was  necessary  to  find  it  proven  by  the  prosecu 
tion  that  the  boy  John  was  taken  and  held  by 
virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney  and  not  by  the 
warrant  —  then  some  hope  was  entertained  that 
the  decision  would  be  for  the  defence.  But  the 
deed  is  done  and  the  fiat  has  gone  forth  that 
Bushnell  must  submit  to  the  penalties  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

This  case  having  been  disposed  of,  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney  called  the  name  of  Charles 
Langston  as  the  next  case.  The  defence  re 
marked  that  they  were  ready  in  none  of  the 
other  cases  except  that  of  Prof.  Peck.  The 
District-Attorney  insisting  upon  that  of  Mr. 
Langston,  Mr.  Spalding  thought  they  might  be 
ready  with  that  case  by  the  time  the  new  Jury 
was  ready  to  proceed. 

Judge  WILLSON  said  the  present  Jury  was 
one  struck  and  selected  for  the  term,  and  it  was 
proper  that  they  should  try  all  the  cases. 

Mr.  BACKUS  remarked  that  he  was  aston 
ished  to  hear  his  Honor  intimate  that  this  Jury, 
who  have  sat  through  and  upon  this  case  — 
heard  all  the  testimony,  and  who  have  now  in 
the  presence  of  the  Court  rendered  a  verdict, 
in  which  their  minds  are  made  up  and  fixed 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


89 


upon  all  the  important  points  in  the  case,  are  to 
be  held  competent  to  try  another  case  almost 
exactly  similar  !  The  ownership  of  John  — 
whether  he  owed  service  to  Bacon  —  whether 
he  was  the  same  John  —  whether  he  was  le 
gally  or  illegally  arrested  by  Jennings  —  and 
whether  he  was  held  by  virtue  of  the  power  of 
attorney  or  by  the  warrant  —  all  these  points 
had  been  heard  and  determined  by  these  men, 
"and  could  it  be  pretended  that  they  would  come 
to  another  trial  with  no  opinions  formed  in 
their  own  minds  ?  Why,  it  was  an  unheard  of 
and  a  most  villanous  outrage  on  the  sense  of 
justice  of  the  civilized  world,  and  no  one  of  the 
defendants  would  so  stultify  himself  as  to  at 
tempt  a  defence  before  such  a  jury.  He  had 
never  known  or  heard  of  such  a  mockery  of 
that  justice  which  should  prevail  in  every  Court. 
It  was  a  terrible,  not  to  say  a  monstrous  pro 
ceeding,  the  like  of  which  had  never  been 
known  since  courts  were  first  in  existence. 

The  COURT  remarked  that  the  Jury  would 
decide  each  case  upon  the  evidence  offered  in 
that  particular  case,  and  there  was  no  occasion 
for  excitement  or  intemperate  zeal  to  be  ex 
hibited,  as  the  rule  would  be  enforced. 

Judge  SPALDING  then  announced  that  if  a 
Jury  who  had  settled  upon  a  decision  upon 
every  important  point  except  identity,  were 
expected  to  try  every  case,  then  the  District- 
Attorney  could  call  the  accused  up  as  fast  as 
he  pleased  and  try  them,  for  neither  would 
they  call  any  witnesses  for  the  defence  nor  ap 
pear  by  attorney  before  such  a  jury. 

"Very  well,"  replied  Judge  BELDEN, — 
"  then  I  ask  the  Court  to  order  these  men  all 
into  the  custody  of  the  marshal." 

The  COURT  then  ordered  the  marshal  to 
take  the  prisoners  into  custody,  when  Judge 
SPALDING  requested  that  their  recognizances 
might  be  cancelled.  The  COURT  also  ordered 
the  marshal  to  send  immediately  for  such  of  the 
indicted  as  were  not  in  the  Court-Room. 

Court  now  adjourned  to  Monday  morning  at 
10  o'clock,  the  counsel  for  the  defence  giving 
notice  that  they  should  consider  it  their  duty  to 
challenge  the  Jury  at  that  time.  Before  the 
adjournment  of  Court,  the  DISTRICT- ATTOR 
NEY  moved  that  the  defendants  be  released 
from  the  custody  of  the  marshal  on  renewing 
their  recognizances  with  sureties  to  the  satis 
faction  of  the  clerk. 

The  COURT  replied  that  the  terms  heretofore 
complied  with  would  be  sufficient,  namely,  per 
sonal  recognizances  in  the  sum  of  $1,000  each. 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  the  room 
•was  cleared  of  all  save  the  following  persons, 
who  had  been  called  up  by  the  marshal  as  the 
accused  (a  few  had  previously  gone  home  on 
permission  of  the  District- Attorney),  their 
counsel,  and  the  marshal :  — 


Loring  Wadsworth, 
Robert  Winsor, 
Jacob  R.  Shipherd, 
John  H.  Scott, 
Ansel  W.  Lvman, 
W.  E.  Lincoln, 
Henry  Evans, 

James  Bartlett, 
Matthew  Gillett, 
O.  S.  B.  Wall, 
Daniel  Williams, 
Henry  E.  Peck, 
James  M.  Fitch, 
Ralph  Plumb. 

Charles  Langston, 
John  Watson, 
Simeon  Bushnell, 


Wilson  Evans, 
David  Watson, 
Eli  Boies, 


These  gentlemen  being  gathered  together 
were  requested  by  the  marshal  to  enter"  their 
recognizance  for  their  appearance  on  Monday 
morning.  This  being  objected  to,  he,  on  his 
own  authority  and  responsibility,  offered  to  let 
them  go  home,  if  they  would*  give  him  their 
parole  of  honor  that  they  would  return  on  Mon 
day  morning,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Bush 
nell,  whom  "he  would  be  obliged  to  retain.  — 
Through  Prof.  Peck  as  their  spokesman,  and 
according  to  the  advice  of  their  counsel,  they 
passed  a  resolution  by  which  they  agreed  after 
due  consultation  to  inform  the  marshal  that,  in 
asmuch  as  the  District-Attorney  had  placed 
them  in  his  custody  they  would  remain  there 
until  relieved  by  due  course  of  law.  They 
would  give  no  bail,  enter  no  recognizance,  and 
make  no  promises  to  return  to  the"  Court. 

They  said  this  with  hearty  thanks  to  the 
marshal  for  his  courtesy  in  the  treatment  of  his 
prisoners. 

This  decision  having  been  made  known,  the 
marshal  informed  them  of  the  necessity  of  plac 
ing  them  in  confinement,  to  which  they  made 
no  objection.  All  this  time  the  outside  passage 
and  halls  (the  doors  having  been  kept  locked) 
were  filled  with  an  eager  crowd  watching  and 
waiting  for  an  insight  into  the  Temple  of  Justice, 
and  waiting  for  the  exodus  of  the  prisoners.  At 
length  the  door  opened,  and  the  marshal,  arm  in 
arm  with  the  venerable  and  white  haired  Mr. 
Gillett,  headed  the  procession,  while  after  them 
came  the  culprits  two  by  two,  with  their  shawls, 
carpet-bags  and  valises,  all  arrayed  and  equipped 
for  a  few  days'  visit  to  Wightinan's  Castle. 

On  arriving  at  the  jail  they  were  kept  wait 
ing  for  some  time  in  the  rain,  while  Sheriff 
Wightman  hesitated  about  receiving  them  as 
prisoners  unless  advised  to  do  so  by  the  County 
Commissioners,  fearing  that  the  county  prop 
erty  might  be  endangered,  and  wishing  some 
advice  on  the  matter.  Ultimately  he  received 
them  as  guests,  until  the  decision  of  the  Com 
missioners  was  made  known.  After  a  long  and 
anxious  session  those  gentlemen  reluctantly 
consented  to  the  use  of  the  jail  for  the  purpose, 
and  the  accused  were  received  as  prisoners. 
They  are,  however,  well  cared  for,  provided 
with  apartments  in  that  part  of  the  jail  kept  as 
a  ^ private  dwelling,  are  well  fed,  and  treated 
with  every  kindness  and  courtesy. 

So  far  are  they  from  being  cowed  by  their 
imprisonment,  that  they  enjoy  themselves  as 
well  as  is  possible  under  the  circumstances. 
Last  night  most  appropriate  and  affecting  relig 
ious  services  were  held  in  their  apartments. 
They  have  been  visited  by  large  numbers  of 


90 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


sympathizing  friends  from  among  the  ^  best  of 
our  citizens,  and  their  residence  in  the  jail  con 
fers  disgrace  on  none  but  those  whose  malice 
sent  them  there. 

"  Stone  walls  do  not  a  prison  make, 

Nor  iron  bars  a  cage ; 
Minds  innocent  and  quiet  take 
That  for  an  hermitage." 

Last  night  they  had  beds  made  up  in  the  up 
per  range  of  cells,  where  they  slept.  To-day 
they  are  in  the  upper  room  of  the  jailer's  resi 
dence,  where  newspapers  and  writing  facilities 
have  been  furnished  them. 

Sheriff  Wightman  has  treated  them  with 
kindness  and  courtesy ;  at  the  same  time  they 
are  strictly  confined  within  the  walls,  and  no 
departure  allowed  from  the  regular  discipline 
of  persons  in  their  condition. 

We  understand  that  this  afternoon  the  pris 
oners  will  be  visited  by  a  large  party  of  ladies 
from  the  congregation  of  the  Prospect  Street 
Church,  accompanied  by  many  other  ladies  re 
siding  in  the  city. 

To-morrow  afternoon,  about  half  past  two 
o'clock,  Professor  PECK  will  preach  to  his 
"  brethren  in  bonds,"  and  such  of  the  citizens 
as  can  be  accommodated,  in  the  jail. 

Perhaps  no  better  idea  could  be  given  of  the 
state  of  feeling  inside  the  prison,  than  may  be 
gathered  from  the  two  extracts  next  following, 
the  first  of  which  is  cut  from  the  Evening  Her 
ald,  of  Monday,  April  18,  and  the  second  from 
the  Morning  Leader  of  the  next  day. 

THE   OBERLIN  RESCUERS. 
The  Bond  Preaching  to  the  Free  ! 

EXTRAORDINARY   SCENE. 

The  jail  on  Saturday  afternoon  appeared 
more  like  a  fashionable  place  of  resort  than  a 
prison.  Plundreds  of  ladies  and  gentlemen  of 
the  highest  standing  called  on  the  Oberlin  pris 
oners,  and  left  them  but  few  intervals  during 
the  day  and  evening  for  rest.  On  all  sides  they 
were  greeted  with  assurances  of  sympathy  and 
respect,  mingled  with  severe  comments  on  the 
extraordinary  conduct  of  District-Attorney 
BELDEN,  in  ordering  their  arrest  in  violation  of 
all  precedent  and  in  contempt  of  all  decency 
and  propriety. 

On  Sunday  afternoon,  according  to  previous 
notice,  Professor  PECK,  one  of  the  Oberlin 
Rescuers  committed  to  jail  to  await  trial,  pro 
ceeded  to  address  his  brethren  in  bonds  and 
such  of  the  free  as  chose  to  come.  The  hour 
appointed  was  half  past  two  o'clock,  and  at  thai 
time  an  immense  crowd  had  gathered  arounc 
the  jail.  The  extensive  jail  yard  was  literallj 
packed  with  human  bodies,  the  space  and  streei 
beyond  filled,  every  roof  and  shed  that  afforded 
a  prospect  of  the  preacher,  crowded,  and  the 


windows  of  the  new  Court  House  building  oc 
cupied.  A  large  number  of  ladies  were  in  the 
crowd,  in  addition  to  those  admitted  by  the 
Sheriff*  to  the  private  apartments  of  the  jail. 
The  crowd  was  of  the  highest  respectability, 
and  numbered  between  three  and  four  thousand 
persons. 

Professor  Peck  stood  just  inside  the  doorway 
of  the  jail,  and  from  that  point  conducted  the 
exercises,  which  he  opened  with  a  short  prayer. 
The  immense  congregation  then  united  in 
singing  the  hymn 

"  My  soul  be  on  thy  guard, 

Ten  thousand  foes  arise; 
The  hosts  of  sin  are  pressing  hard 
To  draw  us  from  the  skies." 

A  portion  of  Scripture  was  then  read,  a 
prayer  offered,  and  the  congregation  sung  the 
hymn 

"  Am  I  a  soldier  of  the  cross, 
A  follower  of  the  Lamb  ? 
And  shall  I  fear  to  own  his  cause, 
Or  blush  to  speak  his  name?  " 

Professor  Peck  then  read  his  text  from 
Matthew  9 :  9. 

"  And  as  Jesus  passed  forth  from  thence,  he  saw  a 
man  named  Matthew,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  cus 
tom;  and  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me." 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  men  that 
they  clearly  apprehend  the  great  law  of  right. 
Do  they  know  that  law ;  they  are  prepared  to 
ascend  from  the  knowledge  to  virtue  and  well- 
being.  Are  they  ignorant  of  it;  that  igno 
rance  sinks  them  to  deepest  sin  and  woe. 

There  are  but  few,  however,  who  can  appre 
hend  the  law  if  it  is  stated  to  them  in  a  merely 
dogmatic  form ;  and  fewer  still  are  those  who, 
knowing  the  law,  can  reduce  it  to  details;  who 
can  frame  for  themselves  a  logical  system  of 
ethics. 

The  infirmity  of  the  human  intelligence 
which  prevents  its  comprehending  abstract 
lightness  has  been  kindly  recognized  and  pro 
vided  for  by  our  Great  Father.  Making 
account  of  it,  He  sent  here  his  Son  in  the  form 
of  a  man,  to  embody  in  an  apprehensible  way 
the  law  which  lays  its  precept  upon  us  all.  In 
the  discharge  of  this  errand,  the  Good  Teacher 
seldom  taught  duty  in  an  abstract  way.  He 
simply  said  to  men,  as  he  did  to  the  tax-gatherer 
in  our  text,  Follow  me. 

The  doctrine  thus  taught  was  easily  compre 
hended.  Untutored  "common  people  heard 
him  gladly,"  and  even  children  learned  from 
his  life  the  truth  they  had  need  to  know. 

When  the  Divine  messenger  left  the  world, 
he  commissioned  and  inspired  men  to  put  on 
lasting  record  the  life  in  which  he  had  displayed 
the  law.  So  Matthew,  the  business-man,  and 
Mark,  the  plain,  farmer-like  man,  and  Luke, 
the  cultivated  man,  and  John,  the  susceptible 
man,  wrote  the  story;  each  telling  it  in  his 
own  way.  Thus  the  world  got  glad-evangels, 
which,  written  from  different  points  of  study, 
agreed  in  well  presenting  the  common  theme 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


91 


—  the  life  which  showed  the  law.  In  this  way, 
sage  and  savage,  were  provided  with  the 
means  of  knowing  just  what  God  would  have 
them  do.  They  had  but  to  follow  Jesus  and 
the  law  would  be  fulfilled.  And  in  following 
the  blessed  Christ  we  find  our  law.  It  will, 
therefore,  be  profitable  for  us  to  consider  a 
few  of  those  things  in  the  life  of  Christ  which 
have  a  bearing  on  or  illustrate  our  duty. 

"VVe  cannot  but  notice, 

I.  That  the  life  we  are  studying  was  always 
pervaded  by  regard  ibr  the  Father's  will. 

In  infancy,  he  replied  to  the  chidings  of  his 
mother,  who  sought  him  as  he  lingered  in  the 
temple,  "  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my 
Father's  business ; "  and  when,  on  the  last  night 
before  his  crucifixion,  a  bitter  cup  was  put  to 
his  lips,  he  only  said,  "  Not  my  will  but  thine  be 
done." 

Nor  could  any  thing  ever  divert  him  from  ac 
complishing  that  will.  When  an  arbitrary  so 
cial  law  forbade  his  associating  with  publicans 
and  sinners,  he  firmly  kept  on  his  own  way,  say 
ing  only,  "  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous  but 
sinners  to  repentance."  And  when  civil  law 
conflicted  with  the  Divine  will,  by  pronouncing 
the  gospel  he  taught  an  illicit  system,  still  did 
he  not  pause.  He  would  preach,  and  his  apol 
ogy  was  declared  in  the  comprehensive  doctrine, 
"  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Cae 
sar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's" 

Here,  then,  we  get  our  first  lesson.  Divine 
•will  is  to  be  paramount  law  with  us.  We  must 
obey  God  always,  and  human  law,  social  and 
civil,  when  we  can. 

Pursuing  our  study,  we  observe, 

H.  That  the  Divine  will  was  well  expounded 
in  the  life  of  Christ.  It  teaches  us  what  that 
will  is — that  it  is  not  an  abstraction,  but  a  liv 
ing  principle,  looking  to  most  practical  results. 
Describe  the  life  in  one  word,  and  that  word  is 
love  —  "  He  went  about  doing  good"  —  such  is 
the  Evangelist's  own  summary  of  the  career  of 
Jesus.  Visiting  the  poor,  healing  the  sick, 
cheering  the  disconsolate,  such  were  his  occu 
pations.  So  it  was  that  Christ  set  forth  his 
idea  of  the  Divine  will. 

And  we  may  well  note  here  that  it  was  from 
his  understanding  of  his  Father's  will  that  Jesus 
took  the  gauge  of  his  relations  to  men.  Ordi 
nary  ties  —  those  of  consanguinity,  for  instance 
— did  not  bind  him  as  they  did  other  men. 
The  need  of  men,  was  what  inclined  him  to 
them.  As  they  were  poor,  or  despised,  or  sor 
rowing,  so  did  he  stand  close  to  them,  and  the 
greater  their  want  the  closer  was  his  relation 
ship  to  them. 

This,  then,  for  we  pause  here  for  another  les 
son,  is  always  the  Divine  will  — that  we  love 
and  do  good  to  others,  and  that  we  fix  our  rela 
tionships  and  distribute  our  endeavors  accord 
ing  not  to  inclination,  but  to  the  need  of 
those  ibr  whose  well-being  we  are  called  to 
act. 

Passing  on,  we  notice, 


III.  That  the  spirit  with  which  Christ  carried 
out  his  Father's  will,  illustrates  our  duty. 

His  was  never  a  grudging  nor  a  self-seeking 
service.  He  gave  up  himself  to  his  work.  He 
assumed  that  he  could  not  accomplish  the  will, 
which  was  his  law,  without  inconvenience  and 
loss  to  himself.  So  he  went  his  way,  expecting 
sorrow  and  pain.  And  when  sorrow  overtook 
him,  he  cheerfully  bore  it.  The  indignities  with 
which  the  ungrateful  compensated  his  love,  did 
not  disturb  him.  The  bufferings  and  mockings 
with  which  his  persecutors  assailed  him,  as  they 
crowned  him  with  thorns,  clothed  him  with  pur 
ple,  and  put  a  sceptre  of  reed  in  his  hand,  did 
not  move  him.  Serenely  did  he  bear  that  keen 
est  grief  which  he  suffered,  when,  looking  from 
the  judgment-hall,  he  saw  his  most  beloved  dis 
ciple  hiding  in  the  distance,  and  his  boldest  one 
openly  giving  himself  up  to  treachery.  And 
the  last  words  which  trembled  upon  his  dying 
lips  were,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  they  know  not 
what  they  do." 

It  will  be  well  for  us  to  note  here  that  it  was 
the  spirit  which  Christ  exhibited  which  barred 
the  mischief  which  had  otherwise  come  of  his 
refusal  to  obey  human  law,  when  that  law  con 
tradicted  the  'Divine  will.  His  disobedience  of 
Caesar  was  not  divisive.  The  State  did  not  suf 
fer  from  it.  A  spirit  which  is  obviously  benevo 
lent  and  generous  never  divides.  Selfishness 
divides  society.  The  good-will,  which  Christ  so 
well  exhibited,  unites  men.  It  is  when  one  fol 
lows  Christ  in  this  respect,  that  kindred  and 
neighbors  are  gathered  most  closely  to  him,  and 
that  society  about  him  becomes  most  compact. 
It  is  the  God-obeying,  loving  spirit  which  Christ 
has  communicated  to  those  who  follow  him, 
which  has  given  life  to  the  social  and  political 
institutions  under  which  we  live,  and  are  glad. 

Let  that  spirit  be  ours.  Let  us  be  cheerful 
in  doing  our  work.  Let  us,  when  we  are 
wronged,  give  no  place  to  vindictiveness,  none 
to  any  desire  but  that  of  good  will  to  all. 

We  find  a  fourth  item  of  instruction  with  re 
spect  to  our  duty,  in  the  manner  of  Christ,  in 
looking  for  a  reward  for  his  labors  and  pains, 
not  to  any  personal  recompense,  but  to  the  good 
to  others  which  was  to  follow  that  labor  and 
pains.  He  never  paused  to  ask  whether  his 
merit  was  recognized ;  whether  the  honor  due 
him  was  rendered ;  whether  he  was  to  enjoy 
either  present  or  posthumous  fame.  It  was 
enough  for  him  to  know  that  the  gospel  he  was 
preaching  was  in  all  time  to  be  life  to  many 
souls ;  that  his  beneficence,  maintained  through 
all  the  ages,  by  those  who  should  follow  him, 
would  minister  good  to  the  needy ;  that  the  poor 
and  forlorn  would  be  blessed  by  it ;  that  those 
"  sick  and  in  prison  "  would  be  cheered  by  it, 
and  that  it  would  strike  the  iron  from  countless 
wretches  unjustly  bound.  This  was  sufficient 
recompense  for  him.  And  such  should  be  the 
onlv  reward  for  well  doing,  which  we  should 
seek.  Is  toil  appointed  to  us ;  are  we  called 
"  to  suffer  for  righteousness'  sake  ?  "  it  is  enough 


92 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


for  us  to  know  that  what  we  do  and  bear  will 
bless  some  child  of  want ;  that  some  poor  wretch, 
who  may  never  know  our  name  or  realize  his 
obligation  to  us,  will  be  cheered  by  the  benefi 
cent  influence  which  we  set  on  foot ;  that  the 
ministry  of  love  which  we  discharge,  will,  after 
we  are  gone  hence,  be  to  parched  tongues  a 
cooling  drop. 

We  need  pursue  our  subject  no  farther.  It 
will  surely  leave  with  us  these  practical  thoughts : 

1.  We    are    in  all  things   to   follow  Christ. 
There  is  no  position  in  which  we  shall  need  any 
other  rule  of  life,  than  the  example  of  the  Lord 
who  has  gone  before  us.     When   duty  is   de 
manded,  we  need  not  look  up  an  abstract  law 
for  our  guidance  ;  we  have  but  to  ask,  "  WThat 
would  Christ  do  ?  "     And  when  we  can  answer 
ourselves  that  Christ  would  do  this  thing  or  that, 
we  need  not  hesitate  to  do  it  ourselves,  even 
though   human    law   or  the   customs   of  men 
should  forbid.  • 

2.  We  learn  how  and  where  we  arc  to  find 
Christ.     It  is  not  in  the  temple  of  worship  only, 
or  in  the  closet,  that  we  are  to  seek  our  Lord. 
Do  we  go  where  the  needy  arc,  do  we  seek  out, 
to  bless,  the  wretch  who  is  crunching  his  last 
crust,  there  shall  we  find  Christ.     Do  we  visit 
the  sick-bed,  from  which  fear  of  contagion  has 
driven  others,  and  there  render  needed  offices, 
behold  there  will  Cfirist  present  Himself.     Do 
we  take  the  panting  fugitive  from   slavery  by 
the   hand,  and  help   him  on   his   weary  way, 
pointing  him  to  the  Northern  Star,  so  we  shall 
presently  find  that  "  the  Man  of  Sorrows  "  is  also 
by  his  side.     So  let  us  seek  our  Lord,  going  as 
He  always  did,  when  He  was  here,  where  the 
neediest  are. 

And,  finally,  let  us  learn  from  our  subject  to 
be  satisfied,  in  all  our  trials  and  labors,  to  be  as 
our  Master  was.  Must  we  submit  to  toil —  did 
not  He  labor  to  utmost  weariness  ?  Are  we 
paid  for  our  self-sacrifices  by  the  ingratitude  of 
those  we  bless  —  was  not  He  repulsed  even  by 
those  He  healed  ?  Are  we  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  and  taunted  and  buffeted  by 
those  who  are  in  power  —  has  not  He  been  in 
the  judgment  hall  before  us,  and  was  not  He 
crowned  with  thorns,  and  did  not  deriding  per 
secutors  mockingly  rail  at  Him  as  the  King  of 
the  Jews  ? 

And  when  we  have  done  all  and  suffered  all, 
let  us  rejoice  to  know  that  we  shall  have  our 
reward  m  the  healing  which  shall  come  through 
us  to  some  wounded  spirit,  and  let  us  go  cheer 
fully  and  joyously  on  our  way,  keeping  in  view 
Him  who  has  trod  the  same  weary  way  before 
us,  assured  that  as  His  works  followed  Him  so 
our  works  will  follow  us,  and  that  the  sons  of 
sorrow  will  be  gladdened  by  us  even  when  our 
hands  have  long  mouldered  to  dust. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  sermon  a  prayer 
•was  offered,  the  doxology  sung,  and  the  congre 
gation  dispersed,  very  many  previously  passing 
through  the  jail  and  shaking  hands  with  the 
prisoners. 


The  remark  was  general  in  the  crowd,  that 
were  the  prisoners  in  the  custody  of  the  U.  S. 
officers  and  Southern  slave  catchers,  instead  of 
the  friendly  care  of  the  County  Sheriff,  the  jail 
walls  would  present  but  a  frail  barrier  between 
a  liberating  crowd  and  the  incarcerated  prison 
ers.  The  numbers  and  the  spirit  for  such  an 
undertaking  were  both  present,  but  under  the 
circumstances  it  was  well  known  such  a  measure 
was  not  necessary. 


THE  INCARCERATED. — The  twenty  Oberlin 
citizens  who  are  incarcerated  in  the  County 
Jail  appear  to  enjoy  life  as  well  as  they  could 
be  expected  to  do  under  the'  circumstances. 
On  Saturday  they  had  an  almost  ceaseless  round 
of  callers  and  friends,  and  President  Buchanan 
hardly  holds  greater  levees  than  did  these  men 
on  Saturday  afternoon.  A  large  number  of 
ladies  made  the  "  reception  room  "  (1 2  feet  by 
18)  cheerful  and  happy  with  their  bright  smiles 
and  lively  conversation.  There  was  no  lack  of 
merriment  and  laughter,  for  even  the  "  stern 
Oberlin  saints  "  can  enliven  the  routine  of  life 
with  a  hearty  laugh  when  occasion  calls  for  it. 
The  spirits  of  the  prisoners  can  be  seen  by  the 
following  correspondence  which  was  written  for 
the  Plaindealer,  but,  being  accidentally  left  out, 
was  solicited  by  us  :  — 

A  VOICE  FROM  THE  JUG.  —  My  good  friend 
Gray  asked  me  to  write  this,  and  said  he  was 
going  to  head  it 

"  Hark !  from  the  tombs," 

so  1  shall  save  him  the  trouble,  and  add  for  his 
benefit  the  remainder  of  this  solemn  stanza ; 
here  is  the  whole  :  — 

"  Hark !  from  tho  tombs  a  doleful  sound ; 
My  ears  attend  the  cry ; 
Ye  living  men  come  view  the  ground 
Where  you  must  shortly  lie." 

Apropos  to  this  sacred  quotation,  seme  one 
in  the  farther  part  of  the  room  is  just  now  say 
ing  that  Mr.  Anderson  Jennings,  to  whom  wo 
rascals  are  especially  indebted  for  our  comforta 
ble  quarters  actually  is,  as  Attorney  Belden  inti 
mated,  a  distinguished  member  of  a  Hard  Shell 
Baptist  Church  in  the  chivalrous  State  of  Ken 
tucky  !  Comments  upon  such  a  statement  are 
quite  unnecessary.  Every  man  to  his  own  in 
ferences.  But  you  are  aching  for  items  —  sen 
sation  items.  How  came  we  in  jail,  and  how 
do  we  feel  here  ?  Came  we  the  defendants 
here  by  order  of  the  Honorable  U.  S.  District 
Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  on 
motion  of  the  U.  S.  District- Attorney.  The 
immediate  provocation  of  the  imprisonment 
seemed  to  be  the  extraordinary  position  taken 
by  the  defendants  in  declining  to  accept  as 
competent  to  decide  upon  their  liberty  the  jury 
which  had  just  rendered  a  verdict  of  guilty 
against  one  of  their  number.  This  Mr.  Belden 
thought  so  impertinent  as  to  destroy  all  his  pre 
vious  confidence  in  us.  Hitherto  we  have  come 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


93 


and  gone  upon  our  word.  But  now  we  are  safe 
only  within  stone  walls.  Not  feeling  very  guilty, 
we  do  feel  very  happy.  We  are  in  jail,  and 
though  treated  with  kindness,  are  none  the  less 
prisoners,  for  Sheriff  Wightman  is  a  faithful 
officer  as  well  as  a  gentleman,  and  allows  no 
personal  feelings  to  interfere  with  the  rigid  dis 
charge  of  his  official  duties;  and  here  in  jail,  in 
the  beautiful  city  of  Cleveland,  in  the  Free 
State  of  Ohio,  we  shall  quietly  lie,  not  for  the 
crime  of  violating  the  act  of  1850,  not  for  the 
charge  or  suspicion  of  so  doing,  but  for  declin 
ing  to  intrust  our  liberty  to  the  keeping  of 
twelve  men  who  had  just  announced  under 
oath,  their  fixed  opinion  of  the  merits  of  our 
case.  Now  how  do  we  look  and  feel  ? 

The  glass  is  passing  freely  around,  backed  by 
a  huge  pitcher.  The  contents  are  as  good  as 
the  Cleveland  Reservoir  can  furnish,  but  still 
a  little  behind  Oberlin  wells.  The  Deacon 
brought  an  armful  of  exchanges  just  after  tea, 
and  the  genial  Junior  of  the  Leader  came  with  as 
many  more  an  hour  later.  Mr.  Benedict  had 
already  supplied  us  the  Evening  Herald.  The 
literarily  inclined  are  therefore  buried  in  news, 
and  the  rest  chatter  quietly  between.  A  steady 
current  of  callers  eddies  through  our  room,  leav 
ing  a  cheerful  sediment  of  anecdote,  witticism, 
discussion,  argument,  querying,  and  comfort. 
Very  respectable  callers  these  are,  too,  without 
exception.  Barristers,  Editors,  Legislators, 
Merchants,  and  Clergymen.  And  now  comes 
our  courteous  Marshal  Johnson  to  unite  coun 
sels  with  the  Sheriff,  the  Jailer  and  the  ladies, 
for  the  lodging  of  so  unexpected  and  serious  an 
addition  to  the  number  of  the  public  guests. 
Next  comes  a  friend  with  an  armful  of  books. 
Then  a  gentleman  and  some  ladies.  Really, 
this  is  a  lively  evening.  But,  alas !  every  echo 
of  our  laughter  rings  with  the  hollow  premoni 
tion  of  a  sundering  Union,  a  disaffected  South, 
and  an  excited  community.  What  shall  be 
did  ?  Something  to  quiet  the  distracted  narves, 
something  to  throw  another  hoop  about  the  part 
ing  Union,  something  to  make  still  more  secure 
the  slippery  two-legged  property  of  our  unfor 
tunate  southern  neighbors. 

But  they  are  laughing  at  me  for  writing  for 
the  Plain-Pealer,  and  your  readers  will  laugh 
so  much  more  yet  to  see  such  an  abolitionist, 
incendiary,  Frecdom-shriekin£,Kansas-humbug, 
Republican,  Oberlin  article  in  your  columns, 
that  I  may  as  well  stop  off.  If  you  feel  infect 
ed,  fumigate  yourself  with  sulphur,  dear  reader, 
and  be  in  Court  on  Monday. 

DUNGEONER. 

CUYAHOGA  COUNTY  JAIL,     > 
Friday  Evening,  April  15,  1859.]" 

As  some  individuals  seem  to  have  misappre 
hended  the  true  grounds  of  the  committal  to 
prison,  it  has  been  thought  best  to  insert  in  this 
connection  an  editorial  which  appeared  in  the 
Cleveland  Herald  of  Saturday  evening,  April 


16th.  This  article  is  selected  as  conveying  pre 
cisely  the  impressions  upon  which  TIIE  TWEN 
TY  acted. 

Tliirty- Seven  Free  Citizens  of  Ohio  consigned 
to  a  Jail  because  they  Refused  to  be  Tried  by 
a  Jury  that  had  Prejudged  their  Cases. 

The  Wellington-Oberlin  rescue  case  assumed 
a  new  phase  on  Friday,  and  we  must  occupy  a 
brief  space,  although  our  columns  have  of  late 
been  filled  with  the  details  of  the  trial  of  Bush- 
nell,  in  reviewing  the  history  of  this  matter, 
and  in  calling  attention  to  the  unprecedented 
and  unpardonable  course  of  District- Attorney 
BELDEN.  We  do  not  know  how  to  character 
ize  the  vindictiveness,  the  malice,  the  venom, 
with  which  the  Prosecution  calls  for  the  ven 
geance  of  the  law  upon  these  men. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  finding  of  these  indict 
ments,  merely  to  remind  our  readers  that  one 
of  the  men  allowed  by  the  Prosecution  to  sit  on 
the  Grand  Jury,  was  Mr.  Boynton,  the  father 
of  the  boy,  who,  for  twenty  pieces  of  silver, 
was  hired  to  deceive  and  decoy  a  miserable,  ig 
norant  black  man  into  the  hands  of  his  captors. 
Here  was  the  first  unblushing  outrage  upon 
propriety,  —  yes,  upon  decency. 

The  next  step  in  this  mockery  of  fair  and 
honorable  dealing,  was  the  empanelling  of  a 
Petit  Jury,  every  man  of  whom  was  an  adherent 
of  the  Democratic  parly,  and  one  of  them  a 
Deputy  United  States  Marshal.  We  do  not  say 
law  was  violated  by  this,  but  we  do  say  —  and 
every  right-minded  person  will  agree  with  us — 
that  this  was  ungenerous,  unfair,  and  an  utter 
violation  of  the  dignity  and  magnanimity  be 
coming  the  professional  character  and  position 
of  a  high  public  prosecutor.  It  was  fit  only  for 
a  four-corner  Justice's  trial  on  a  horse  warranty 
question. 

The  trial  was  had  on  the  case  against  Bush- 
nell,  and  the  jury,  very  summarily,  found  him 
guilty.  We  are  not  disposed  to  impugn  the  in 
tegrity  of  these  jurors :  they  acted  under  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath  each  had  the  intelligence 
to  comprehend,  and  the  responsibility  of  which 
they  ought  fully  to  feel.  How  those  men  could 
say  —  for  by  their  verdict  they  have  so  said  — 
that  those  two  Kentucky  slave-catchers  told  the 
truth  about  that  power  of  attorney,  while  some 
half  dozen  of  as  good  citizens  as  Lorain  County 
contains  were  guilty  of  flat,  deliberate,  down 
right  perjury,  is  a  matter  for  them  to  settle  with 
their  own  consciences.  We  do  not  arraign  them 
for  their  opinion  upon  that  subject,  but  proceed 
to  the  scene  which  ensued  upon  the  rendition 
of  their  verdict. 

The  question  came  up  as  to  the  trial  of  the 
other  cases,  and  the  District-Attorney,  in  his 
vindictiveness,  his  malignity  towards  the  re 
maining  defendants,  insisted  that  each  ^  of  them 
should  be  tried  by  that  same  Jury  —  a  jury  that 
under  the  solemnity  of  their  oaths,  had  pre 
judged  all  these  cases. 


94 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  jury,  by  its 
verdict,  had  found  that  there  was  concert  of  ac 
tion  at  Wellington,  on  the  part  of  the  crowd  of 
which  these  defendants  were  a  component  part. 
That,  of  course,  prejudged  the  vital  point  in  the 
remaining  cases. 

But  the  outrage  upon  judicial  propriety 
and  decency,  can  only  be  appreciated  by  add 
ing  this  fact,  that  the  jury  which  sat  upon  Bush- 
nell's  case,  was  a  "  Struck  Jury."  What  lawyer 
ever  heard  of  a  "  Struck  Jury  "  for  an  entire 
term  of  Court  ?  "We  have  it  from  the  most  ex 
perienced  gentlemen  of  our  bar,  from  those  who 
for  years  have  sat  upon  the  Bench,  who  have 
grown  gray  in  the  profession,  that  a  "  Struck 
Jury  "  is  always  confined  to  the  one  case  to  try 
which  it  was  empanelled.  Ordinarily  the  term 
dockets  do  not  embrace  cases  resting  upon  like 
facts,  and  in  such  case  the  claim  of  the  District- 
Attorney  that  the  "  Struck  Jury "  is  for  the 
term,  while  it  would  be  novel,  would  not,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  be  glaringly  unjust;  but  in 
this  instance  it  is  monstrous. 

When  the  defendants  found  that  the  District- 
Attorney,  in  his  madness,  was  determined  to 
put  them  through  the  wretched  farce  of  a  pre 
tended  trial,  while  the  verdict  of  guilty  had 
been  already  pronounced  by  the  Jury  before 
whom  they  were  to  be  arraigned,  they  aban 
doned  their  defence,  and  Judge  SPALDIXG  said, 
in  behalf  of  the  defendants,  that  if  compelled 
to  go  before  this  Jury,  they  would  introduce  no 
witnesses,  and  the  trial  would  be  solely  on  the 


part  of  the  Government.  The  defence  dismissed 
their  Counsel,  and  refused  to  stultify  themselves 
by  appearing  to  accede  to  such  a  legal  outrage 
upon  their  rights.  Then  it  was  the  District- At 
torney  exultantly  claimed  his  privilege  of  order 
ing  Bushnell  into  the  custody  of  the  Marshal ; 
and  he  did  more,  he  moved  that  those  persons 
who  were  at  large,  upon  their  own  recogni 
zances,  be  taken  into  custody.  After  their 
names  were  called,  and  they  had  entered  the 
box  assigned  them  by  the  U.  S.  Marshal,  Judge 
SPALDING  moved,  in  behalf  of  the  defendants, 
that  an  entry  be  made  on  the  Journal,  showing 
the  several  recognizances  cancelled.  This  was 
done,  or  ordered  to  be  done  by  the  Court.  Sub 
sequently,  the  District- Attorney  applied  for  an 
order  that  these  defendants  be  admitted  to  bail, 
at  any  time,  by  entering  into  recognizances, 
ivith  sureties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Clerk.  The 
Judge  made  the  order,  but  distinctly  said  no 
bail  or  sureties  would  be  required ;  that  is,  they 
might  renew  their  own  individual  recognizances, 
if  they  saw  fit.  Then  the  vengeance  of  the 
District- Attorney  seemed  for  a  moment  satisfied, 
and  these  men  were  marched  to  our  jail,  where 
they  lie  incarcerated.  And  for  what  ?  Why, 
for  refusing  to  be  tried  by  a  Jury  that  had  pre 
judged  their  cases. 

That  is  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  matter, 
and  we  rest  it  here,  begging  the  people  of  Ohio 
to  ponder  upon  this  outrage,  and  to  answer  to 
themselves  this  question :  What  is  the  trial  by 
Jury  worth  in  Ohio  V 


CHAPTER    THIRD. 


To  gratify  the  reader,  it  is  made  a  study, 
throughout  this  volume,  to  avoid  repetitions. 
The  testimony  given  on  Mr.  LAXGSTOX'S  trial 
•will  usually  be  introduced  in  this  chapter  only 
when  it  materially  differs  from  that  given  on  the 
trial  of  Mr.  BUSHXELL.  The  compiler  ac 
knowledges  his  indebtedness  to  Mr.  BACKUS 
and  Mr.  GRISWOLD,  for  the  use  of  their  notes 
of  the  testimony  on  this  trial,  from  which  his 
selections  are  mainly  drawn.  The  indefatiga 
ble  reporters  of  the  Leader  and  of  the  Her 
ald  will  occasionally  recognize  "  familiar  pas 
sages"  in  this  as  in  other  Chapters,  for  the 
privilege  of  using  which,  they  need  not  be  told 
he  gladly  makes  grateful  acknowledgments. 

A  chain  of  untoward  circumstances,  begin 
ning  with  our  incarceration,  and  ending  with 
the  foundation  of  this  work  itself,  so  interrupt 
ed  the  compiler's  personal  attendance  upon 
Court  during  this  trial,  that  he  is  mainly  depen 


dent  upon  the  labors  of  others  for  its  history. 
His  deep  personal  regret  that  he  cannot  hold 
himself  alone  chargeable  with  any  errors  of 
omission  or  commission  that  may  be  detected 
herein,  is  however  sensibly  mitigated  by  the 
sincere  pleasure  the  opportunity  affords  him  to 
become  the  recipient  of  the  numberless  kind 
offices  of  friends. 

So  much  of  the  testimony  as  is  presented  in 
this  chapter  may  be  received  with  every  confi 
dence  in  its  accuracy ;  and  it  is  believed  that 
but  little,  if  any,  of  importance  has  escaped 
selection. 

TRIAL  OF  CHARLES  LANGSTON. 
FIRST  DAY.  —  MONDAY,  APRIL  18,  1859. 

Court  convened  at  9  o'clock.  On  the  read 
ing  of  the  Journal  for  Friday,  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  Charles  Langston  had  appeared  and 
given  up  his  recognizance,  on  his  own  free  will 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


95 


and  pleasure,  the  Counsel  for  the  defence  ob 
jected,  saying  that  it  was  on  the  motion  of  the 
District-Attorney,  that  the  defendants,  Lang- 
ston  being  included,  were  ordered  into  custody, 
and  that  then  after  they  had  been  taken  into 
such  custody,  the  defence  requested  that  the 
recognizances  be  cancelled.  The  Journal  en 
try  is  as  follows :  — 

Friday,  April  15th,  1859. 
The  United  States^          No.  71. 

v.  >  Indictment  for  rescuing  a 

Charles  Langston. )      fugitive  from  service. 

This  day  comes  the  said  defendant  and  sur 
renders  himself  into  the  custody  of  the  Court, 
in  discharge  of  his  recognizance  heretofore  en 
tered  into  for  his  appearance  at  this  term  of  the 
Court,  to  answer  to  the  said  indictment.  Where 
upon  it  is  ordered  by  the  Court  that  the  said 
recognizance  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  dis 
charged  and  cancelled. 

And  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  said  De 
fendant  enter  into  his  own  recognizance,  with 
out  surety,  before  the  Clerk  of  this  Court,  in 
the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  for  his  appear 
ance  from  day  to  day  during  the  present  term 
of  this  Court,  to  answer  to  said  indictment 
pending  against  him  for  rescuing  a  fugitive  from 
service,  and,  in  default  thereof,  that  he  be  com 
mitted  to  the  custody  of  the  Marshal  of  this 
District,  to  be  by  him  conveyed  to  the  jail  of 
•  Cuyahoga  county,  there  to  remain  until  the 
further  order  of  this  Court. 

Similar  entries  are  made  in  the  cases  of  all 
the  others,  except  in  that  of  Bushnell,  in  ref 
erence  to  whom  the  record  is  as  follows :  — 

Friday,  April  15,  1859. 
The  United  States')  No.  74. 

v.  >  Indictment  for  rescuing  a 

Simeon  Bushnell.  )      fugitive  from  service. 

This  day  come  again  the  parties  to  this  cause 
by  their  attorneys,  the  said  Defendant,  Simeon 
Bushnell,  being  present  here  at  the  bar  of  the 
Court,  and  also  come  again  the  jurors  empan 
elled  and  sworn  herein,  on  Tuesday,  the  fifth 
day  of  April,  instant;  and  the  testimony  of 
arguments  of  counsel  being  concluded,  the  said 
jurors,  after  receiving  the  charge  of  the  COURT, 
retired  to  deliberate  concerning  their  verdict, 
accompanied  by  a  sworn  officer  of  the  Court. 

And  now  having  returned  into  Court  here, 
the  said  jurors  upon  their  oaths  do  say,  that 
the  said  Defendant,  Simeon  Bushnell,  is  guilty 
in  manner  and  form  as  he  stands  charged  in 
said  indictment. 

And  thereupon,  on  motion  of  the  District- 
Attorney,  it  is  ordered  that  the  said  Defendant 
be  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Marshal  of 
this  District,  to  await  the  further  order  of  the 
Court. 

Some  discussion  here  ensued  as  to  the  cor 
rectness  of  the  Journal  entry.  The  COURT 
remarked  that  the  entry  was  correct  accordin" 


to  its  recollection.  The  defence  stated  the  case 
as  "it  occurred.  Judge  BELDEN  said  that  be 
fore  he  had  expressed  the  hope  that  the  de 
fendants  be  ordered  into  custody,  he  had  said 
that  he  hoped  good  security  would  be  given 
in  the  sum  of  $500.  This  case  having  been 
freely  discussed  and  stated,  the  Court  still  held 
that  the  entry  was  correct.  Some  sharp  ques 
tions  and  statements  being  made,  Judge  WILL- 
SON  remarked  that  he  would  state,  once  for  all, 
that  no  insolence  would  be  allowed  before  the 
Court,  and  any  counsel  using  such  insolence 
would  have  his  name  stricken  from  the  bar. 
Judge  SPALDING  replied  that  he  had  merely 
endeavored  to  assist  the  Court  in  a  correct  un 
derstanding  of  the  case,  and  if  for  such  state 
ments  and  information,  and  for  his  efforts  to 
shield  and  protect  the  right,  the  Court  saw  fit 
to  strike  his  name  from  the  roll  it  could  be 
done  at  once.  The  COURT  replied  that  it 
probably  would  be  done. 

The  COURT  remarked  that  this  present  Jury 
would  be  called,  and  any  one  of  them  could  be 
challenged  if  there  was  an  objection.  There 
being  a  vacancy  in  the  Jury,  Harvey  Rice  and 
David  J.  Garrett  were  summoned  by  the  Mar 
shal  to  sit  upon  the  case.  Judge  WILLS  ON  fur 
ther  remarked  that  as  it  was  impossible  to  pre 
vent  the  Jury  from  reading  the  city  papers,  he 
should  have  a  reporter  authorized  and  sworn  to 
report  the  testimony  accurately  and  fully. 
Louis  Feeser,  the  reporter  for  the  Law  College, 
was  selected  for  this  purpose.  As  no  specific 
order  was  issued  to  prevent  other  reporters 
"  taking  notes,"  we  took  upon  ourselves  the 
authority  to  make  our  own  report.  All  other 
reporters  being  left  to  find  seats  for  themselves 
wherever  they  could  about  the  room  —  and  not 
being  allowed  to  sit  at  the  reporters'  tables,  in 
the  area  with  the  counsel  and  the  bar,  we  must 
ask  for  indulgence  as  to  any  omissions  and  mis 
apprehensions,  as  we  were  so  far  removed  from 
the  witness  stand  that  we  could  not  hear  all 
that  occurred. 

On  the  question  as  to  whether  there  was  any 
objection  to  the  Jury  on  the  part  of  the  de 
fence,  Judge  SPALDIXG  replied  that  there  was. 
He  challenged  the  array  on  the  ground  of  its 
being  a  struck  Jury,  and  although  that  struck 
Jury,  after  coming  into  Court,  was  adopted  as 
the  regular  Jury  of  the  term,  that  did  not  re 
move  the  objection.  They  had  passed  upon 
every  important  fact  in  the  case  except  the 
sole  fact  of  the  identity  of  the  particular  de 
fendant  with  the  crowd  who  rescued  the  boy, 
and  it  would  be  a  mere  farce  to  go  before  them 
again  for  justice.  Moreover  it  was  a  political 
Jury,  selected  and  brought  here  for  a  specific 
purpose. 

Judge  BLISS  replied  that  they  were  not  dis 
qualified  for  acting  and  deciding  justly,  on  the 
ground  of  having  already  passed  upon  the  facts 
in  the  case  of  Simeon  Bushnell,  for  they  must 
judge  according  to  the  evidence  adduced.  Such 
objections  as  had  been  raised  had  never  been 


96 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


considered  as  sufficient  grounds  of  disqualifica 
tion. 

Mr.  RIDDLE  referred  to  cases  which  he  had 
known  of  in  his  capacity  as  public  prosecutor, 
when  three  persons  were  severally  and  sep 
arately  indicted,  when  the  presiding  Judge 
ordered  the  Sheriff  to  make  up  a  new  jury  in 
each  trial.  And  it  had  been  the  case  in  the 
Courts  of  Northern  Ohio,  to  try  before  a  new 
jury  each  case  under  the  same  or  a  similar  in 
dictment  for  the  same  offence,  and  in  this  case 
every,  one  of  the  Jury  had  prejudged  upon  all 
the  important  points  in  the  matter,  and  it  could 
not  be  pretended  for  a  moment  that  the  juror 
who  had  fixed  and  passed  a  conviction  in  his 
mind  upon  these  points,  would  go  to  a  new 
trial  with  an  unbiassed  mind. 

The  COURT  expressed  its  opinion  to  be  quite 
clear,  that  if  the  allegation  against  Langston 
was  throughout  the  same  as  that  against  Bush- 
nell,  with  the  mere  substitution  of  one  name 
for  the  other,  then  that  would  disqualify  the 
jurors  in  the  former  case  from  sitting  upon  the 
trial  of  Langston.  It  then  requested  the  former 
jury  to  vacate  the  jury  box,  and  ordered  the 
marshal  to  empanel  a  new  jury. 

Mr.  BACKUS  remarked  that  as  objection  had 
been  raised  to  the  former  jury  on  the  grounds 
of  political  proclivities,  he  hoped  the  Court 
would  itself  appoint  the  new  jurors,  that  there 
might  be  no  grounds  for  such  complaint  here 
after.  The  Court,  however,  considered  that 
the  Marshal  would  proceed  with  his  duty  fairly, 
and  left  it  to  him. 

The  Marshal  wishing  a  little  time  to  select 
his  jury,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  o'clock. 

AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

Court  convened  at  2  o'clock.  The  following 
jurors  were  called  to  the  bar  by  the  Mar 
shal  :  — 

Harvey  Rice,  Irvin  K.  Bishop, 

David  J.  Garrett,         Charles  Howell, 

John  M.  Hughes,         Boliver  Butts, 

Andrew  Cozad,  Levi  Johnson, 

S.  A.  Case,  William  Burton, 

Sturgis  Lynes,  Richard  Hussey. 

These  gentlemen  being  severally  questioned 

by  the    Counsel  for  the  prosecution,  replied 

that  they  had  no  objection  to  the  enforcement 

of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  if  the  proof  showed 

the  defendants  to  be  guilty  of  a  violation  of 

the  same.  Mr.  Lynes  was  challenged  by  Judge 

BELDEN  and  withdrew.     Mr.  J.  II.  Crittenden 

was  called  in  his  place.    Mr.  BACKUS  inquired 

of  Mr.  Bishop  if  he  had  been  present  at  the 

trial.     He  had  been  present  a  part  of  the  time. 

The  question  being  asked  if  he  had  made  up 

his  mind  upon  the  ownership  of  John  by  Bacon, 

it  was  objected  to,  but  sustained  by  Mr.  BACKUS 

by  argument,  that  it  was  necessary  to  know  as 

to  their  opinion  upon  the  several  averments  of 

the  indictment.    Judge  BLISS  replied  that  this 

was  contrary  to  all  custom  to  inquire  in  respect 


to  every  idea  contained  in  the  question  at  issue. 
This  matter  was  discussed  and  argued  by  Mr. 
BACKUS,  but  the  Court  held  that  he  might  read 
the  indictment  to  the  jury,  and  make  the  gen 
eral  inquiry  as  to  any  opinion  formed,  but  that 
they  would  not  consume  time  by  such  particular 
inquiry.  The  indictment  was  then  read  to  the 
jury  by  Mr.  GRISWOLD,  when  Mr.  Bishop  was 
asked  the  questions :  If  he  believed  the  boy  es 
caped  from  his  lawful  master ;  if  he  had  made 
up  his  mind  whether  this  Jennings  was  a  law 
ful  agent  of  Bacon ;  if  Bacon  made  acknowl 
edgment  of  his  ownership  before  the  Clerk  of 
the  Court;  whether  Bacon  made  out  this 
power  of  attorney  to  Jennings;  whether  the 
uoy  at  the  time  of  the  rescue,  was  in  the  cus 
tody  of  Jennings ;  whether  the  defendant 
Langston,  did  rescue  the  negro  boy  John, 
from  Jennings,  who  held  the  boy  by  virtue  of 
power  of  attorney  from  Bacon,  who  (Bacon) 
was  the  lawful  owner  of  the  boy ;  and  whether 
the  defendant  Langston,  was  aware  at  the  time 
of  the  rescue  that  the  boy  was  really  a  slave 
held  by  lawful  authority.  All  of  these  ques 
tions  were  overruled  by  the  Court  as  improper 
to  be  asked.  Mr.  BACKUS  said  he  proposed 
asking  all  these  questions  of  all  the  jurors,  and 
supposed  he  was  to  understand  that  all  were 
overruled.  He  then  asked  the  juror  what 
means  he  had  for  forming  an  opinion  upon  the 
case.  Mr.  Bishop  said  he  had  not  read  the 
papers,  and  had  not  formed  an  opinion.  The 
same  inquiry  was  made  of  Mr.  Garrett.  This 
juror  confessed  that  he  had  not  formed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  Langston,  but  he  be 
lieved  the  boy  was  a  slave.  This  brought  up  a 
discussion  as  to  challenging  the  juror  upon  this 
point.  The  defence  asked  to  have  the  juror 
excused  upon  the  ground  of  this  opinion,  but 
the  Court  declined  to  excuse  him  upon  that 
ground.  On  being  further  questioned,  the 
juror  said  that  he  supposed  the  slave  did  escape 
and  was  illegally  rescued.  He  was  allowed  to 
stand  aside,  being  quite  too  decided  a  char 
acter  to  act  upon  the  jury.  Mr.  Daniel  Cleve 
land  was  called  in  his  place.  In  like  manner 
Mr.  Hussey  was  questioned,  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution  several  times  interrupting  the  ques 
tioning,  but  the  Court  held  that  it  was  compe 
tent  to  inquire  on  such  points  as  would  tend  to 
bias  a  fair  verdict. 

All  of  the  jurors  were  similarly  questioned. 
Mr.  Case,  having  formed  too  much  of  an  opinion, 
was  excused.  fc>.  T.  Loomis  Avas  called  in  his 
place. 

Mr.  Howell  being  challenged,  Mr.  J.  M.  Arm 
strong  took  his  place,  but  being  challenged,  Mr. 
B.  BroAvnell  was  called  in  his  place. 

Mr.  Loomis  wished  to  be  excused  on  account 
of  business  at  home.  Mr.  H.  B.  Platt  was  called 
in  his  place. 

Mr.  Brownell  being  challenged  by  the  de 
fence,  Mr.  George  A.  Davis  was  called  in  his 
place. 

Mr.  Butts  being  challenged  by  the  prosecu- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


97 


tion,    Mr.  J.   TV.    Smith  "was    called    in    his 
place. 

Mr.  Flatt  having  formed  an  opinion,  Mr.  Wm. 
B.  Hall  was  called  in  his  place. 

No  further  objection  being  raised,  the  follow 
ing  jurors  were  sworn  :  — 

Harvey  Rice,  Richard  Hussey, 

John  M.  Hughes,  J.  H.  Crittcndcn, 

Andrew  Cozad,  Daniel  Cleveland, 

John  K.  Bishop,  Geo.  A.  Davis, 

Levi  Johnson,  J.  W.  Smith, 

William  Burton,  Wm.  B.  Hall. 

The  politics  of  this  Jury  were  too  marked 
to  escape  notice.  They  stood  :  nine  Adminis 
tration  men,  two  Fillmorc  Whigs,  and  one  Re 
publican,  who  had  no  objections  to  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law.  The  preliminaries  being  arranged, 
the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Charles  Lang- 
ston,  for  rescuing  the  fugitive  slave  John,  was 
opened  by  District- Attorney  BELDEX,  in  re 
marks  to  the  Jury,  setting  forth  what  was 
claimed  by  the  prosecution,  and  reading  from 
the  law  on  the  point  of  the  recovery  of  fugi 
tives.  Also,  what  was  charged  and  expected 
to  be  proved  against  the  defendant.  The  in 
dictment  against  Langston  runs  thus :  — 

United  States  of  America,    \ 
Northern  District  of  Ohio,  ss.  ) 

In  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  of  the  No 
vember  Term,  A.  r>.  1858. 

The  Grand  Jurors  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  empanelled,  sworn,  and  charged  to 
inquire  of  crimes  and  offences  within  and  for 
the  body  of  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  upon 
their  oath  present  and  find  that  heretofore,  to 
wit,  on  the  first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  a  certain  negro  slave  called  John,  a  per 
son  held  to  service  and  labor  in  the  State  of 
Kentucky,  one  of  the  United  States,  the  said 
John  being  the  property  of  one  John  G.  Bacon, 
of  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  the  person  to 
whom  such  service  and  labor  were  then  due, 
and  the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  to  wit,  on 
the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  so  being  held 
to  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid,  and  said  ser 
vice  and  labor  being  due  as  aforesaid,  did  es 
cape  into  another  State  of  the  United  States, 
to  wit,  into  the  State  of  Ohio  from  the  said 
State  of  Kentucky :  —  and  that  afterwards,  to 
wit,  on  the  first  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eijjht  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight,  one  Anderson  Jennings  the  agent  and  at 
torney  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon  duly  author 
ized  for  that  purpose  by  power  of  attorney  in 
writing  executed  by  the  said  John  G.  Bacon,  to 
wit,  on  the  4th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1858, 
and  by  him  on  said  day  acknowledged  before 
Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  County  Court 
of  the  County  of  Mason,  in  said  State  of  Ken 
tucky,  and  on  said  day  certified  by  said  Robert 
A.  Cochran,  Clerk  as  aforesaid,  under  the  seal 
of  the  Mason  County  Court,  the  said  Robert  I 

13 


A.  Cochran  then  being  a  legal  officer,  and  the 
said  Mason  County  Court  then  being  a  legal 
Court,  in  the  said  State  of  Kentucky,  in  which 
said  State  said  power  of  attorney  was  executed 
—  did  pursue  and  reclaim  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John,  into  and  in  the  said  State  of  Ohio, 
and  did,  to  wit,  on  the  said  first  day  of  October, 
in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
fifty-eight,  in  the  said  Northern  District  of  Ohio, 
and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  pursue 
and  reclaim  the  said  negro  slave  called  John, 
he  then  and  there  being  a  fugitive  person  as 
aforesaid,  and  still  held  to  service  and  labor  as 
aforesaid,  by  then  and  there,  to  wit,  on  the  day 
and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  District  aforesaid, 
and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  seiz 
ing  and  arresting  him  as  a  fugitive  person  from 
service  and  labor  from  said  State  of  Kentucky 
as  aforesaid ;  —  and  that  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John  was  then  and  there,  to  wit,  on  the 
day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  in  the  said  State  of 
Ohio,  at  the  District  aforesaid  and  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  lawfully  pursuant  to 
the  statute  of  the  United  States  given  and  de 
clared,  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  arrest 
ed,  in  the  custody  and  under  the  control  of  the 
said  Anderson  Jennings  as  agent  and  attorney 
as  aforesaid  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon  to  whom 
the  service  and  labor  as  aforesaid  of  the  said 
negro  slave  called  John,  were  then  and  still  due 
as  aforesaid  together  with  one  Jacob  K.  Lowe, 
then  and  there  lawfully  assisting  him  the  said 
Anderson  Jennings  in  the  aforesaid  arrest,  cus 
tody,  and  control  "of  the  said  negro  slave  called 
John.  And  the  jurors  aforesaid  do  farther  pre 
sent  and  find  that  Charles  Langston,  late  of 
said  District  together  with  divers,  to  wit,  two 
hundred  other  persons  to  the  jurors  aforesaid 
unknown,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  said  first 
day  of  October,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-eight,  at  the  District  aforesaid 
and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  with 
force  and  arms,  unlawfully,  knowingly,  and 
willingly,  did  rescue  the  said  negro  slave  called 
John,  then  and  there  being  pursued  and  re 
claimed,  seized  and  arrested,  and  in  the  custody 
and  control  aforesaid,  lie,  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John,  being  then  and  there  a  fugitive 
from  and  then  still  held  to  service  and  labor  as 
aforesaid,  from  the  custody  of  the  said  Ander 
son  Jennings  then  and  there  the  authorized 
agent  and  attorney  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon 
as  aforesaid,  and  the  said  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  then 
and  there  lawfully  assisting  the  said  Anderson 
Jennings  as  aforesaid  —  he,  the  said  Charles 
Langston  then  and  there  well  knowing  that  the 
said  negro  slave  called  John,  was  then  and 
there  a  fugitive  person,  held  to  service  and  la 
bor  as  aforesaid,  and  pursued  and  reclaimed, 
seized  and  arrested,  and  held  in  custody  as 
aforesaid ;  —  to  the  great  damage  of  the  said 
John  G.  Bacon  :  contrary  to  the  form  of  the 
Act  of  Congress,  in  such  case  made  and  pro 
vided,  and  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the 
United  States. 


98 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


And  the  Grand  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their 
oath  further  present  and  find,  that  heretofore, 
to  wit,  on  the  first  day  of  March,  in  the  year 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  a 
certain  negro  slave  called  John,  a  person  held 
to  service  and  labor  in  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
one  of  the  United  States,  the  said  John  being 
the  property  of  one  John  G.  Bacon,  of  the  said 
State  of  Kentucky,  the  person  to  whom  such 
service  and  labor  were  then  due,  and  the  said 
negro  slave  called  John,  to  wit,  on  the  day  and 
year  last  aforesaid,  so  being  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  and  said  service  and  labor 
being  then  due  as  aforesaid,  did  escape  into 
another  State  of  the  United  States,  to  wit,  into 
the  State  of  Ohio,  from  said  State  of  Kentucky ; 
—  that  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  tenth  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-eight,  one  Anderson  Jen 
nings,  the  agent  and  attorney  of  the  said  John 
G.  Bacon,  duly  authorized  for  that  purpose  by 
power  of  attorney  in  writing,  executed  by  said 
John  G.  Bacon,  to  wit,  on  the  4th  day  of 
September,  A.  D.  1858,  and  by  him  acknowl 
edged  on  said  day  before  Robert  A.  Cochran, 
clerk  of  the  County  Court  of  the  County  of 
Mason,  in  said  State  of  Kentucky,  and  on  said 
day,  certified  by  said  Robert  A.  Cochran,  clerk 
as  aforesaid,  under  the  seal  of  the  said  Mason 
County  Court,  the  said  Robert  A.  Cochran 
then  being  a  legal  officer,  and  said  Mason 
County  Court  then  being  a  legal  court,  in  the 
said  State  of  Kentucky,  in  which  said  State 
said  power  of  attorney  was  executed,  did  pur 
sue  and  reclaim  the  said  negro  slave  called 
John,  into  and  in  the  said  State  of  Ohio ;  — 
and,  to  wit,  on  the  said  tenth  day  of  September 
in  the  year  last  aforesaid  did  pursue  and  re 
claim  the  said  negro  slave  called  John,  by  pro 
curing,  to  wit,  on  the  day  and  year  last  afore 
said,  a  warrant,  to  wit,  at  Columbus  in  said  State 
of  Ohio,  from  Sterne  Chittenden,  then  and 
there  a  Commissioner  of  the  United  States 
Circuit  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of 
Ohio,  duly  appointed  by  said  Court  as  such 
Commissioner,  and  who  in  consequence  of  such 
appointment  was  then  and  there  authorized  to 
exercise  the  powers  that  any  Justice  of  the 
Peace  or  other  magistrate  of  the  United  States 
could  or  might  exercise  in  respect  to  offenders 
for  any  crime  or  offence  against  the  United 
States,  by  arresting,  imprisoning,  or  bailing  the 
same,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  33d  section 
of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
the  24th  of  September,  1789,  entitled  "An 
Act  to  establish  the  Judicial  Courts  of  the 
United  States,"  for  the  apprehension  of  the 
said  negro  slave  called  John,  then  and  still  a 
fugitive  from  and  held  to  service  and  labor  as 
aforesaid,  which  said  warrant,  bearing  date  the 
10th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1858,  was  duly 
issued  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  said 
Sterne  Chittenden,  as  Commissioner  as  afore 
said,  and  directed  to  the  United  States  Marshal 
and  to  any  Deputy  United  States  Marshal  of 


the  Southern  District  of  Ohio,  and  was  then 
and  there  delivered  to  Jacob  K.  Lowe  then 
and  there  being  a  Deputy  United  States 
Marshal  for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio,  and 
which  said  warrant  commanded  the  said  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  Deputy-Marshal  as  aforesaid,  to  seize, 
arrest,  and  take  the  said  fugitive  negro  slave 
called  John,  then  and  still  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  and  who  was  escaped  as 
aforesaid  and  him  safely  keep  so  that  forthwith 
said  Deputy-Marshal  should  have  his  body 
before  some  United  States  Commissioner  within 
and  for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio  to  an 
swer  the  further  command  of  the  said  warrant ; 
—  and  the  jurors  aforesaid  further  present  and 
find,  that  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  first  clay  of 
October,  A.  D.  1858,  at  the  Northern  District 
of  Ohio,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court,  by  virtue  of  the  said  warrant  he,  the 
said  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  Deputy-Marshal  as  afore 
said,  and  then  and  there  lawfully  assisting  the 
said  Anderson  Jennings  as  agent  and  attorney 
as  aforesaid,  to  seize  and  arrest  the  said  negro 
slave  called  John,  then  and  still  a  fugi 
tive  from  and  held  to  service  and  labor 
as  aforesaid,  did,  then  and  there  take,  seize, 
and  arrest  the  said  negro  slave  called  John, 
as  a  fugitive  from  and  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  and  that  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John  was  then  and  there  on  the  day  of 
the  year  last  aforesaid,  in  the  said  State  of 
Ohio  at  the  District  last  aforesaid,  and  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  lawfully  arrested, 
in  the  custody,  and  under  the  control  of  the  said 
Jacob  K.  Lowe,  Deputy-Marshal  as  aforesaid, 
by  virtue  of  the  said  warrant,  he,  the  said  Dep 
uty-Marshal,  then  and  there  lawfully  assisting 
the  said  Anderson  Jennings,  then  and  there  the 
agent  and  attorney  of  the  said  John  G.  Bacon, 
as  aforesaid :  And  the  Jurors  aforesaid  do  fur 
ther  present  and  find  that  Charles  Langston, 
late  of  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  together 
with  divers,  to  wit,  three  hundred  other  persons 
to  the  said  Jurors  unknown,  heretofore,  to  wit, 
on  the  said  first  day  of  October,  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-eight,  at  said 
Northern  District,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court,  with  force  of  arms,  unlawfully, 
knowingly,  and  willingly,  did  rescue  the  said 
negro  slave  called  John,  then  and  there  being 
pursued  and  reclaimed,  seized  and  arrested, 
and  in  the  custody  and  control  aforesaid,  he  the 
said  negro  slave  called  John,  being  then  and 
there  a  fugitive  from  and  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  from  the  custody  of  the  said 
Jacob  K.  Lowe  then  and  there  being  and  acting 
as  Deputv-Marshal  as  aforesaid,  and  then  and 
there  having  the  custody  of  the  said  negro  slave 
called  John  as  aforesaid,  and  then  and  there 
lawfully  assisting  the  said  Anderson  Jennings, 
agent  and  attorney  as  aforesaid :  he,  the  said 
Charles  Langston,  then  and  there  well  knowing 
that  the  said  negro  slave  called  John  was  then 
and  there  a  fugitive  person  held  to  service  and 
labor  as  aforesaid,  and  pursued  and  reclaimed, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


99 


seized  and  arrested,  and  held  in  custody  as 
aforesaid;  —  to  the  great  damage  of  the  said 
John  G.  Bacon  ;  — contrary  to  the  form  of  the 
Act  of  Congress,  in  such  case  made  and  provi 
ded,  and  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the 
United  States. 

G.  W.  BELDEN,  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Mr.  KIDDLE  set  forth  the  position  of  the  de 
fence,  and  some  of  the  circumstances  which 
would  be  shown  by  the  testimony  which  they 
would  bring  forward. 

Mr.  John  G.  Bacon  was  first  sworn.  His  tes 
timony  was  substantially  the  same  as  it  had 
been  in  the  former  case,  and  need  not  be  re 
peated. 

Just  before  adjournment,  Mr.  RIDDLE  re 
marked  that  he  understood  the  Court  to  intimate 
in  remarks  made  in  the  morning,  that  the  Jour 
nal  entry  relative  to  the  cancelling  of  the  recog 
nizance  of  the  accused,  be  struck  out  and  they 
be  released  without  entering  any  new  recogni 
zance,  and  be  considered  in  the  same  position 
which  they  occupied  prior  to  Friday  last.  The 
COURT  replied  that  they  could  go  out  again  upon 
signing  new  recognizances  as  before.  Mr. 
RIDDLE  remarked  that  they  would  do  nothing 
of  the  kind,  and  so  the  matter  stands.  They 
will  issue  no  new  papers. 

SECOND  DAY. 

Court  convened  at  nine  o'clock,  Judge  WILL- 
SOX  presiding.  Examination  of  John  G.  Bacon 
continued.  Being  in  substance  as  heretofore 
reported. 

Prof.  Peck  and  Mr.  Plumb  are  allowed  to  be 
in  Court  during  its  sessions,  being  accompanied 
to  and  from  the  jail  by  a  bailiff. 

Robert  A.  Cochran.  Richardson  was  my 
deputy,  and  authorized  (objected  to  and  over 
ruled)  to  act  for  me.  They  lay  taxes  on  slaves 
in  Kentucky,  but  whether  John  was  ever  listed 
I  do  not  know.  Under  the  laws  of  Kentucky, 
whatever  the  Clerk  as  principal  may  do,  that 
his  deputy  using  his  (the  principal's)  name  may 
do.  The  deputy  is  appointed  by  the  court  on 
motion  of  the  Clerk.  A  power  of  attorney  to 
convey  personal  property  need  not  be  ac 
knowledged —  for  real  estate  it  must  be. 
Slave  property  in  our  State  is  a  distinct  class, 
part  real,  part  personal.  A  married  woman 
owning  slaves  cannot  part  with  them  unless  her 
husband  unites  with  her  in  making  a  deed. 
A  man  can  part  with  slaves  by  giving  a  simple 
bill  of  sale.  There  is  a  mixture  of  habit  about 
the  signature  of  deputy  clerks ;  some  sign  their 
own  name,  and  some  (more  frequently  so)  the 
name  of  their  principal.  Know  of  no  law  fix 
ing  either  mode. 

SECOND  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON. 
I  distinctly  remember  that  I  came  in  just  as 
Bacon  and  Loyd  were  passing  out,  and  had 
them  come  back  and  make  the   acknowledg 
ment  over  again  in  my  presence,  as  still  appears 


on  the  paper,  my  deputy  still  doing  the  writing. 
I  had  him  put  in  also  the  last  two  lines :  "  The 
said  parties  are  personally  known,"  etc.  There 
is  no  statute  prescribing  the  duties  of  a  deputy. 
They  take  the  same  oath  as  the  principals,  and 
do  the  same  things.  On  the  previous  trial  I 
did  not  swear  that'l  had  no  personal  knowledge 
of  this  acknowledgment. 

Anderson  Jennings.  Saw  John  last  about  a 
year  before  I  heard  he  had  gone  away.  First 
saw  him  in  a  room  in  Wadsworth's  tavern  at 
Wellington.  Knew  him  at  once.  [The  COURT 
ruled,  in  United  States  v.  Bushnell,  that  neither 
the  acts  nor  the  words  of  the  negro  were  evi 
dence.  On  reflection,  it  was  now  prepared  to 
rule  that  the  acts  but  not  the  words  were  evi 
dence.]  Was  administrator  of  James  Jennings. 
Was  in  Oberlin  first  some  five  or  six  days  pre 
vious  to  September  13,  in  search  of  a  boy  be 
longing  to  an  uncle's  estate.  Staid  a  day  and 
a  half.  Did  not  see  John,  but  heard  of  him, 
and  wrote  to  Bacon.  (Bacon  says  the  letter  is 
lost.)  Directed  it  to  James  Reynolds,  because 
he  would  get  it  sooner  than  Bacon,  and  told 
him  in  the  letter  to  send  it  on.  Went  from 
Oberlin  to  Sandusky,  and  thence  home.  Got 
home  on  Saturday  and  saw  Bacon  on  Monday. 
May  have  been  Sunday  —  was  Sunday  or  Mon 
day  ;  can't  tell  which.  Asked  him  if  he  had  got 
my  letter,  and  if  he  had  sent  the  power  of  attor 
ney  and  witness  as  requested,  and  he  said  he  had. 
Had  sent  the  power  of  attorney  by  Mitchell. 
I  passed  Mitchell  on  the  river.  Suppose  I  got 
home  before  Mitchell  passed,  but  he  did  n't 
know  it.  Missed  him.  Didn't  see  him.  I 
asked  Bacon  to  come  back.  He  said  he 
could  n't.  I  asked  if  he  thought  Loyd  would 
pay  my  expenses,  or  give  me  any  thing  if  I 
brought  his  nigger  back.  He  said  he  did  n't 
know.  I  studied  for  some  little  time  and  told 
him  as  he  had  sent  the  power  of  attorney  at 
some  trouble  at  my  suggestion,  I  would  come 
back.  Started  back  on  Monday.  Think  I  got 
to  Oberlin  on  Wednesday  night  about  9  or  1 0 
o'clock.  Stopped  at  Wack's.  Asked  Mitchell 
if  he  had  seen  John.  Got  the  power  of  attor 
ney.  Next  morning  sent  for  Warren.  Had 
got  acquainted  with  Warren  on  the  first  trip. 
He  came.  Asked  him  if  he  thought  there 
would  be  any  difficulty  in  trying  to  arrest  Frank 
or  John.  He  said  he  thought  there  would. 
Then  asked  him  if  he  thought  we  could  go  and 
make  the  arrest  after  night  and  get  out  of  town 
before  we  should  be  found  out.  He  said  he 
thought  that  would  be  a  very  dangerous  opera 
tion.  Might  get  shot  and  never  know  who  done 
it.  If  we  done  it  in  the  village  at  all,  better  do 
it  by  daylight  by  all  means.  But  he  thought 
the 'best  way  was  to  make  some  arrangements 
to  get  the  boy  out  of  town.  I  asked  who  would 
help  us  do  this.  He  thought  this  young  Boyn- 
ton  would.  Went  to  "Boynton's  Saturday 
night.  We  was  all  sittin'  in  the  room  together, 
the  General  and  family,  and  Lowe  and  me, 
arid  this  little  Shakespeare  came  in  and  went 


100 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


to  asking  his  father  about  going  to  town  early 
Monday  morning,  and  looked  so  smart  I  thought 
I  would  try  him.  So  I  followed  him  out  doors 
by  the  gate,  and  told  him  my  business,  and 
offered  him  ten  dollars  if  he  would  get  John 
out,  and  ten  more  for  Frank.  He  said  he 
would  try.  Then  I  thought  I  ought  to  speak 
to  the  old  man  about  it  and  see  if  he  approved. 
He  (old  man)  said  Shakespeare  was  capable  to 
manage  his  own  business,  and  he  and  me  could 
fix  it  up  between  us. 

Staid  at  the  General's  till  dusk.  Then  went 
back  to  Wack's,  and  staid  all  night  This  was 
Sunday.  Don't  remember  whether  I  read  the 
Bible  much  that  day.  Boy  came  down  Mon 
day  and  tried  nigger,  etc.  Told  him  to  tell 
John  he  had  gone  to  the  blacksmith's  for  his 
horse,  and  come  up  and  tell  me  whether  he  had 
fixed  up  the  second  arrangement.  When  he 
come  and  told  me  the  bargain  was  made,  I  told 
Lowe  and  Mitchell  and  Davis,  that  they  had 
better  fix  up  and  go  on.  I  had  promised  the 
boy  $20,  if  he  would  get  either  John  or  Frank. 
They  went,  and  the  boy  come  back  and  told 
me  they  had  got  him.  He  was  gone  about 
three  quarters  of  an  hour.  Paid  him  the  $20, 
got  dinner  and  went  to  Wellington,  and  there 
found  John. 

At  Wellington  told  John  I  had  a  power  of 
attorney  for  him.  [The  COURT  ruled  that  un 
less  it  was  shown  that  defendant  Langston  was 
present  at  this  interview,  or  what  passed  in  it 
was  brought  home  to  knowledge  of  defend 
ant,  it  would  be  obliged  to  hold  it  incompe 
tent.  DISTRICT- ATTORXKY  proposed  to  show 
this.  The  COURT  said  if  he  foiled  to  show  it, 
this  part  of  the  testimony  would  be  ruled  out.] 
Persons  in  upper  room  asked  if  John  was  a 
fugitive,  and  they  were  informed  that  he  was. 
Asked  if  he  was  a  fugitive  servant  from  Kentucky. 
All  persons  in  the  room  were  thus  informed. 
Showed  the  power  of  attorney.  The  lawyer 
and  others  read  it,  and  I  explained  it  to  them. 
Told  'cm  they  might  talk  to  the  nigger.  They 
did. 

Several  came  into  the  lower  room.  I  don't 
recollect  that  I  showed  the  power  of  attorney 
in  the  loAver  room.  .  .  .  Mr.  Wheeler  came  in 
and  asked  questions.  This  was  on  the  lower 
floor.  He  asked  the  nigger  if  he  was  a  fugitive. 
Said  he  was.  He  then  asked  him  to  whom  he 
belonged.  He  said  to  Bacon.  Asked  him  if 
he  wanted  to  go  back.  John  said  he  did  want 
to  go  back.  Wheeler  asked  him  if  he  knew  us 
(me  and  Mitchell).  He  said  he  did. 

He  said  Mitchell  lived  close  neighbor  to  his 
master  Bacon.  Wheeler  said  he  believed  that, 
if  he  would  make  that  statement  on  the  plat 
form,  the  crowd  would  let  him  go ;  he  thought 
they  certainly  would  let  him  off  and  not  inter 
fere.  We  took  him  out ;  this  was  from  the 
lower  room.  This  was  about  an  hour,  or  an 
hour  and  a  half  after  I  arrived  —  about  three 
o'clock,  or  half  past  three.  I  consented,  and  he 
got  up  and  walked  out.  I  went  with  him.  The 


platform  was  over  the  front  door.  There  was 
a  big  crowd ;  near  one  thousand.  A  good  many 
men  armed.  I  saw  forty  or  fifty  armed  with 
guns,  rifles,  shot  guns.  Saw  no  revolvers.  John 
commenced  telling  what  he  had  said  in  the 
house  ;  he  mentioned  that  they  had  the  papers 
for  him,  and  he  reckoned  he  would  have  to  go 
aack.  Some  one  hollered  from  the  crowd,  "  you 
will  have  to  go  back,  will  you  ?  we  '11  see  about 
that!"  I  did  not  know  him.  Just  then,  saw  a 
negro  point  his  gun.  I  stepped  back,  gave  John 
a  pull  and  came  back  into  the  house.  The 
crowd  had  stopped  him  from  saying  that  he 
wanted  to  back.  They  told  him  to  jump  down, 
hey  would  protect  him.  I  heard  them  say  he 
should  n't  go  back.  I  said  nothing  to  the  crowd. 
Mitchell  and  Lowe  went  out  with  me  on  the 
platform.  Don't  recollect  that  they  said  any 
thing.  .  .  .  The  power  of  attorney  and  the 
warrant  were  shown.  .  .  .  Told  them  that  come 
into  the  room,  that  I  was  going  to  take  him  to 
Columbus,  to  have  him  tried,  and  that  they 
might  send  a  committee,  etc.,  and  that  if  I  could 
not  show  that  I  had  a  right  to  take  him,  we 
would  let  him  go.  Some  of  them  said  they 
could  n't  let  him  go  thar,  it  was  too  far  South. 
Both  the  warrant  and  the  power  of  attorney 
were  shown  in  both  rooms.  I  talked  very  free 
ly  about  them;  thought  that  was  the  way  to 
succeed.  I  went  further  and  told  them  I  would 
sell  the  nigger.  Some  man  asked  me  what  I 
would  take  for  him.  This  was  the  lawyer.  I  said 
$1,400.  He  said  that  was  more  than  he  would 
bring  in  Kentucky.  He  said  that  was  too  high. 
I  told  him  I  knew  better.  Mitchell  suggested 
to  let  them  have  him  for  $1,200.  They  did  not 
propose  to  pay  the  money.  A  man  in  the 
crowd  said,  "  there's  a  chance  now  to  buy  the 
nigger."  He  said  he  would  pay  $5  ;  another 
man  said  he  would  pay  jive  cents.  That 's  the 
last  I  heard  of  the  purse. 

They  were  working  at  the  door  for  some  time. 
I  concluded  at  last  that  I  would  not  let  any 
more  in.  I  held  the  door.  The  nigger  was  in 
the  room,  myself,  and  some  others  also.  They 
undertook  to  get  me  away  from  the  door.  They 
struck  through  the  stove-pipe  hole;  it  went 
through  my  hat  —  hurt  my  head  some.  [Hat 
exhibited.]  Should  have  fell  had  it  not  been 
for  the  rope.  Don't  know  what  they  struck 
with.  A  short  time  after  this  Lowe  came  to  me 
and  told  me  it  was  not  necessary  to  hold  on  any 
longer.  They  were  putting  up  a  ladder  to  the 
building.  I  looked  around.  The  window  was 
fastened.  Patton  came  and  spoke  to  me.  .  .  . 
I  directed  the  seizure  of  John  at  Oberlin.  I 
had  charge  of  him  at  Wellington.  .  .  .  Saw  de 
fendant  in  the  upper  room  that  evening.  He 
had  no  anus.  This  was  half  an  hour  before  the 
rescue.  Don't  recollect  who  he  talked  with,  ex 
cept  with  Lowe.  The  latter  asked  him  to  assist 
him  in  preventing  them  from  taking  John  away. 
He  refused  to  do  it,  and  said  we  might  just  as 
well  give  him  up,  as  they  were  determined  to 
have  him.  He  said,  we  are  determined  to  have 


OBERLIN- WELLING! ON  RESCUE. 


101 


him.  Don't  think  he  staid  in  very  long.  Don't 
know  whether  any  thing  was  said  in  his  hear 
ing  about  the  authority  by  which  John  was  held. 
D&  n't  hear  all  that  passed  between  him  and 
Lowe.  .  .  .  Eight  or  ten  were  in  the  room ; 
Watson  amon£  them. 

Cross-examined.  Knew  John,  but  didn't 
know  whose  son  or  grandson  he  was.  He  was 
some  five  feet  six  to  eight  inches.  Was  a 
thrjfty  boy.  Never  saw  Prof.  Peck  till  I  saw 
him  here.  Heard  of  him  before  —  he  wrote  me 
a  letter  in  the  newspaper.  Have  n't  answered 
it  yet.  Don't  know  as  I  shall.  Heard  my  boy 
Henry  was  at  Elyria ;  got  there,  and  heard  he 
had  gonfc  to  Painesville.  Went  there  and 
found  a  worse  place  than  Oberlin.  Never  see 
so  many  niggers  and  abolitionists  in  any  one 
place  in  my  life  !  Dayton  was  with  me.  They 
give  us  twenty  minutes  to  leave,  and  then 
would  n't  allow  us  that !  There  was  a  crowd  of 
fifty  or  sixty,  armed.  Might  as  well  try  to  hunt 
the  devil  there  as  to  hunt  a  nigger.  Was  glad 
to  get  away  as  fast  as  I  could.  Kept  very  close 
at  Oberlin.  Did  n't  tell  my  business  to  many. 
Dayton  and  Warren  were  at  my  room.  Mc- 
Millen  had  a  power  of  attorney  to  take  John 
when  I  wrote  for  one.  Don't  know  whether 
Bacon  knew  he  had  one  or  not.  S'pose  Mc- 
Millen  went  and  got  it  for  his  own  use,  without 
Bacon's  knowledge.  Wrote  for  one  for  myself, 
because  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  Ids  power  of 
attorney.  Went  to  Columbus  to  get  some  help. 
Thought  I'd  need  all  the  help  I  could  get. 
Tried  to  get  help  from  Dayton,  but  he  refused. 
This  was  before  we  went  to  Painesville.  Went 
to  Columbus  for  Lowe  because  I  knew  him. 
Lowe  told  me  I  'd  best  get  a  warrant.  So  I 
did.  Told  Lowe  I'd  pay  his  expenses  up  to 
Oberlin,  and  if  we  got  any  of  the  niggers  I 
would  give  him  and  Davis  a  hundred  dollars. 
This  was  for  both  between  'em.  I  offered  him 
this  because  I  knew  perfectly  well  that  Bacon 
•would  pay  all  expenses.  He  never  has  paid  me 
any  thing.  Made  arrangement  with  Shake 
speare  on  Sunday.  Heard  what  Belden  said 
about  my  piety.  Don't  often  do  business  on 
Sunday.  Did  this  on  Sunday,  for  fear  the  nig 
ger  might  be  off.  Did  n't  say  a  word  to  Boyn- 
ton  about  my  business  till  after  I  had  made  the 
arrangement  with  the,  boy.  Never  offered  the 
old  man  any  thing  for  his  help.  Watson  and 
another  yaller  negro  come  tarin'  up  in  their 
buggy,  with  a  gun  a-piece.  Didn't  see  more 
than  them  two  in  the  buggy.  Did  not  say  on 
the  other  trial  that  Watson  was  the  only  man  I 
could  identify  that  was  there.  Soon  after  we 
got  there,  Lowe  come  and  told  me  he  wanted 
me  to  take  charge  of  the  negro ;  he  had  had  no 
charge  of  him  on  the  road,  though  always  act 
ing  under  me.  Everybody  was  shown  the  pow 
er  of  attorney  and  warrant  both.  Scrimgeour 
and  another  fellow  come  in  and  tried  to  get 
the  nigger  out  while  Lowe  was  in  the  crowd 
reading  his  warrant.  Never  said  I  was  the 
owner  of  the  nigger.  Lowe  did  say  to  me  that 


we 
not 


had  better  gi/e  hmi  Oup,  If  they,  would  agree 
to  hurt  us.  Lowe  did  command  several 
persons  to  assist  him,  as  Unitefl  Stages  Marsh?,!, 
to  execute  his  pa^eis.  \  .,  ,;  *  • 

I  had  my  power'  of  attorney  !n  Diy  pocket 
when  Lowe  and  Davis  went  to  take  John.  I 
told  Lowe  of  the  arrangement  I  had  made 
with  the  boy,  and  wanted  him  and  Davis  to  go 
on  and  take  him,  and  I  would  stay  and  settle  the 
bills,  and  meet  them  at  Oberlin.  They  did  not 
take  dinner  before  they  left.  I  left,  I  judged, 
at  about  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  I  did 
not  suppose  Shakespeare  would  tell.  I  drove 
along  pretty  free.  Think  I  was  an  hour  and  a 
half  on  the  road.  Fifty  people  were  there 
when  I  got  there  from  Oberlin.  The  crowd 
collected  mighty  fast  after  I  got  there.  I  did 
swear  that  I  had  difficulty  in  getting  up  stairs 
when  I  first  got  there.  Mr.  Smith  met  me  near 
the  stable,  and  commenced  talking  to  me.  I 
dare  not  talk  to  him.  Saw  the  crowd  gather 
ing,  and  I  thought  if  I  could  get  the  negro  out 
of  the  crowd,  I  would  slip  him  off.  I  did  not 
go  to  Smith.  I  stood  several  minutes,  ten  or 
fifteen  minutes,  before  I  went  into  the  tavern. 
I  stood  there  until  the  old  man  Watson  came 
tearing  along.  He  and  another  nigger ;  each 
had  a  gun.  I  then  went  into  the  house.  Had 
difficulty  in  getting  into  the  house.  Don't 
know  that  I  heard  the  word  "  kidnappers  "  that 
day.  Sheriff  came  then  to  arrest  us.  Did  not 
say  it  was  for  kidnapping.  Our  own  party 
were  in  the  room,  and  a  good  many  others  — 
cannot  state  who.  The  door  was  shut.  I 
called.  Lowe  came  to  the  door.  Do  n't  know 
whether  he  had  to  unfasten  it.  Saw  John.  He 
riz  up  and  met  me.  Called  my  name  first.  I 
told  him  I  had  a  power  of  attorney  for  him. 
Took  it  out  of  my  pocket,  and  showed  it  to 
him.  John  could  not  read.  Heard  the  boys 
say  they  had  showed  John  the  warrant  on  the 
road.  I  asked  John  if  he  was  willing  to  go 
with  us.  He  said  he  was.  Did  not  tell  John  that 
he  would  be  sold  after  he  got  home.  Inquired 
of  him  after  my  nigger.  Said  he  did  not  be 
lieve  he  had  been  to  Oberlin.  Then  others 
kept  coming  in.  They  all  saw  the  power  of 
attorney  and  the  warrant.  There  was  not  a 
man  that  came  in  there,  but  that  knew  of  the 
warrant  and  the  power  of  attorney,  and  under 
stood  all  about  it.  I  told  them  I  was  acting 
under  my  power  of  attorney.  I  did  not  hear 
Lowe  say  that  he  had  the  nigger  by  virtue  of 
a  warrant.  He  told  Scrimgeour  that  we  had 
him ;  then  pointed  to  me  and  told  him  I  had  a 
power  of  attorney.  He  also  said  he  had  a  war 
rant.  Did  not  tell  what  he  was  doing  with  it 
Dickson  came  in.  Lowe  told  me  he  wanted  to 
see  our  papers.  I  pulled  out  my  power  of  at 
torney,  and  Lowe  his  warrant.  Lowe  took  out 
his  first.  Cannot  recollect  what  he  said. 
Showed  him  his  warrant,  and  then  told  him 
about  me.  We  wanted  him  to  know  just  how 
we  held  the  nigger.  I  told  him  I  had  him  by 
the  power  of  attorney.  Lowe  did  not  tell  how 


102 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


he  hadiuVn.;  This*  was  'arftur  'John  went  on  to 
the  platform.  'Wheeler  Bad  'been  in  and  ques 
tioned.  hinv  before  i  going  out1,  on  'the  platform. 
baTd  sa-v^ral  •  sv  of  ds  otffc  "there.  I  swore 


.that  John  did  not  say  what:  he  went  out  to  say. 
Wheeler  said  if  John  would  go  out  and  tell  the 
crowd  what  he  had  told  Wheeler,  they  would 
let  him  go.  John  said  that  his  master  had  sent 
for  him  ;  that  they  had  the  papers  for  him,  and 
he  thought  he  would  have  to  go.  A  nigger 
pointed  a  gun  at  him,  and  cocked  it.  I  did  not 
know  but  he  was  going  to  shoot  me.  I  pulled 
him  in.  Patton  was  in  before  and  after  this 
too.  I  showed  him  my  power  of  attorney. 
Don't  remember  about  Squire  Howk.  I  showed 
my  power  of  attorney  to  a  good  many.  To 
Bennett,  to  Patton,  and  to  Dickson.  Lowe 
went  out  with  the  papers  —  took  the  power  of 
attorney  and  warrant  both.  Meacham  told 
him  the  crowd  wanted  to  see  his  papers.  Lowe 
did  not  want  to  go.  Patton  and  Meacham  told 
him  they  would  protect  him. 

THIRD  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 

After  Lowe  started,  two  men  came  to  the 
door  and  knocked.  I  asked  how  many  were 
there.  They  said  "two,"  and  I  let  them  in. 
One  had  spectacles  on.  They  went  back  by 
the  nigger  and  took  hold  of  him  and  led  him 
down  by  the  door.  I  asked  what  they  were  go 
ing  to  do  with  him.  They  said  they  were  going 
out.  I  told  them  "  not  with  that  nigger."  Told 
them  if  they  wanted  to  go  out  they  could  go. 
They  then  requested  us  to  show  our  papers  ;  — 
by  what  authority  we  held  the  negro.  I  did 
not  tell  him  at  all  that  I  held  him  by  virtue  of 
a  warrant.  I  turned  them  round  and  told 
them  "  papers  or  no  papers  they  could  not  take 
that  nigger  out  o'  that  room."  This  was  in  the 
upper  room.  It  was  getting  pretty  well  towards 
night.  Lowe  got  back  before  the  negro  was 
taken  away.  I  did  not  tell  Scrimgeour  any 
thing  about  the  papers.  He  knew  perfectly 
well  that  we  had  the  power  of  attorney  and  the 
warrant.  They  did  not  ask  me  to  go  out.  They 
asked  Lowe  to  go  out.  I  would  not  have  gone 
Patton  came  to  the  door  and  wanted  to  go  out. 
I  slacked  the  rope  to  the  door  and  let  him  go 
out  and  then  they  made  a  rush.  Would  not 
have  opened  the  door  except  to  let  Patton  out 
Eight  or  ten  in  all  got  into  the  window  before 
the  negro  got  away.  I  discovered  the  men  get 
ting  in  the  window  soon  after  the  glass  broke. 
They  surrounded  the  nigger  and  hustled  him 
out.  Think  Langston  come  in  with  the  crowd 
by  the  door.  I  saw  it  was  no  use  and  let  tht 
door  go.  I  did  not  tell  Patton  that  I  was  the 
owner  of  the  negro.  Saw  Langston  there  about 
half  an  hour  before  the  rescue.  Don't  know  as 
he  was  there  more  than  once.  The  only  time 
I  saw  him  to  notice  him  was  when  Lowe  was 
there.  Patton  was  in  the  most  of  the  time 
Lowe  had  sent  for  Langston.  Don't  know  wha 
he  sent  for  him  for.  Lowe  asked  Langston  i 


would  assist  us.  He  said  he  would  n't  do  it ; 
>aid  we  might  as  well  give  him  up,  as  they 
were  bound  to  have  him.  If  Lowe  said  thev 
might  have  John  if  they  would  let  us  alone,  it 
was  after  John  was  gone.  During  the  conver 
sation  Lowe  and  Langston  were  in  the  room 
,vhere  John  was.  Think  Lowe  did  proclaim 
limself  a  United  States  Deputy-Marshal,  that 
le  had  a  warrant  and  ordered  them  to  assist 
lim  in  executing  his  papers.  He  showed  them 
he  power  of  attorney  and  the  warrant.  Don't 
remember  who  he  called  upon  to  help  him  ex 
ecute  the  power  of  attorney.  A  brick-maker 
was  called  upon  by  the  marshal  to  assist  him  in 
carrying  out  the  law.  Did  not  hear  him  say 
that  he  had  a  right  as  marshal  to  call  for  assist 
ance.  .  .  .  All  the  conversation  to  which  I  have 
referred  occurred  in  the  room  where  John  was. 
Won't  state  that  Lowe  did  not  take  any  of  them 
"nto  another  room.  Think  he  did  not*  Did  not 
say  to  Scrimgeour  that  Lowe  held  John  by  vir 
tue  of  a  warrant.  Had  not  been  in  the  room 
a  great  while  before  I  took  him  to  the  garret. 
Don't  know  how  long.  It  strikes  me  that  I  saw- 
defendant  in  the  crowd  that  came  in  at  the 
door  at  the  time  John  was  taken  out.  Wouldn't 
swear  positively  that  Langston  was  there.  Lowe 
called  Langston  in  to  see  the  papers.  I  thought 
he  was  a  lawyer.  Langston  said,  "  you  might 
as  well  give  the  negro  up,  as  they  are  going  to 
have  him  any  way."  He  did  not  tell  Lowe  he 
would  not  interfere.  I  think  me  and  Patton 
and  Mitchell  and  Lowe  and  Davis  were  there. 
Think  this  was  ihejirst  time  that  Langston  was 
there.  .  .  . 

Richard  P.  Mitchell  ...  I  was  put  in  pos 
session  of  a  power  of  attorney  for  Jennings. 
This  is  the  paper.  I  was  along  when  this  power 
of  attorney  was  executed.  Cochran  had  an 
addition  made  to  it  after  it  was  made  out.  Ba 
con  was  there,  and  Loyd.  The  addition  was 
put  to  it  by  the  deputy,  by  the  direction  of  the 
clerk,  Cochran.  John  is  a  full  blooded  negro. 
I  took  the  power  of  attorney  to  Oberlin  and 
gave  it  to  Jennings  when  he  came.  I  arrived 
at  Oberlin  on  the  6th  of  September.  It  was 
Monday  night.  Jennings  got  there  Wednesday 
night,  the  8th.  I  saw  John  there  before  Jen 
nings  arrived.  Saw  him  pass  Wrack's  house.  I 
knew  him.  Was  satisfied  it  was  him.  Had  no 
conversation  with  him  then.  The  next  morn 
ing  after  Jennings  arrived  he  left  for  Columbus. 
He  got  back  Friday  night.  He  staid  until  some 
time  in  the  day,  Saturday.  Then  he  and  Lowe 
went  into  the  country.  I  staid  at  Wack's.  They 
came  back  Sunday  evening  to  AVack's,  after 
dark.  Don't  know  what  time  it  was.  I  staid 
there  until  between  eleven  and  one  o'clock  on 
Monday. 

[The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  informed  the 
Court  that  unless  Prof.  Peck  desisted  from  sug 
gesting  questions  to  the  opposite  counsel  he 
should  order  him  back  to  jail.  Mr.  BACKUS 
begged  the  gentleman  to  quiet  his  fears,  for 
Prof.  Peck  had  suggested  no  questions  at  all, 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


103 


and  if  he  had,  the  gentleman's  sensitiveness 
seemed  rather  out  of  place.] 

Found  the  boy  a  mile  and  a  half,  or  a  mile 
and  three  quarters  from  Oberlin.  He  was  in  a 
buggy  with  Shakespeare.  Davis  took  hold  of 
him  nrst  Davis,  Lowe,  and  I  were  along.  We 
put  him  in  the  carriage  in  the  back  seat  with 
me.  Lowe  drove.  1  knew  John  then.  I 
talked  with  him  about  Kentucky. 

[The  COURT  ruled  that  for  the  purposes  of 
testimony,  all  persons  whether  black  or  white 
must  be  regarded  as  persons;  and  since  the 
words  of  third  parties  were  not  evidence,  the 
District-Attorney  could  not  ask  what  John 
said.] 

Took  him  to  Wellington.  Got  there  about 
two  o'clock,  P.  M.  Took  dinner  at  Wadsworth's 
Hotel  in  Wellington. 

THIRD  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Left  Jennings  at  Oberlin.  Saw  him  next  at 
Wellington,  after  dinner,  up  in  the  room  in  the 
second  story.  He  came  into  the  room.  John 
got  up  and  shook  hands  with  Jennings.  Jen 
nings  had  been  there  but  a  little  while  when  he 
said,  he  did  n't  like  that  room  —  it  was  too  open. 
He  got  one  in  the  attic.  .  .  .  We  were  in  the 
same  room  about  half  an  hour  after  Jennings 
arrived.  Then  he  took  us  to  the  upper  room. 
A  good  many  persons  came  into  that  room. 
Don't  know  whether  they  belonged  to  the 
crowd  or  not.  Cannot  say  whether  defendant 
was  there  or  not  A  man  came  into  the  upper 
room  that  was  called  Langston,  but  I  don't  re 
cognize  him.  Don't  know  whether  it  was  de 
fendant  or  not.  Don't  know  whether  he  saw 
the  power  of  attorney  or  not.  Heard  no  con 
versation  between  him  and  Lowe.  We  were  in 
the  upper  room  about  two  hours.  John  was 
taken  out  into  the  porch  before  going  up.  Jen 
nings,  Lowe,  myself,  and  Davis  went  out  with 
him.  Said  he  was  going  home  —  that  his  mas 
ter  had  sent  for  him,  and  that  he  was  going 
home,  that  they  had  the  papers  for  him,  and  he 
had  got  to  go,  or  was  going.  There  was  a  large 
crowd  there.  Cannot  tell  what  they  were  say 
ing.  Some  were  excited.  Nothing  was  done 
to  John  or  the  rest  of  us  by  the  crowd.  Saw 
no  guns  pointed.  Some  one  called  to  John  and 
asked  him  if  he  wanted  to  go  home.  John  said, 
it  did  not  make  any  difference  whether  he 
wanted  to  go  or  not,  the  law  was  against  him. 
This  was  all.  We  then  went  back  into  the 
lower  room,  but  soon  went  into  the  upper  room. 
Was  in  the  room  when  John  was  taken  away. 
The  railroad  train  had  passed  before.  The 
door  was  pushed  open.  Cannot  tell  how.  A 
considerable  of  a  crowd  rushed  in  and  right  out 
again.  There  were  in  the  room,  then,  Mande- 
ville  and  Sciples,  I  think.  Jennings,  Lowe, 
Davis,  and  myself,  also.  Think  the  window 
was  broken  —  could  not  be  positive.  Think 
one  or  two  came  through  the  window  which  I 
heard  was  broken.  This  window  is  in  front 


Saw  a  ladder  put  up  to  this  window.  The 
power  of  attorney  was  shown  to  a  number  of 
persons.  I  cannot  say  that  any  individual  was 
asked  to  go  out  and  inform  the  crowd.  I  was 
in  the  room  all  the  time,  from  the  time  I  first 
went  in  until  the  negro  was  rushed  out.  I 
thought  Mr.  Jennings  had  the  management  of 
John  at  Wellington. 

[After  the  examination  of  Mitchell  was  fin 
ished,  Deputy-Sheriff  Whitney,  of  Lorain  coun 
ty,  stepped  forward  and  arrested  Jennings  and 
Mitchell  on  a  warrant  issued  from  Lorain  Com 
mon  Pleas  against  them,  upon  an  indictment 
found  in  that  County  for  kidnapping.  The 
United  States  Deputy-Marshal  then  stepped 
forward  and  exhibited  a  Bench  Warrant,  by 
virtue  of  which  the  two  were  held  in  custody 
of  the  Marshal  for  the  purpose  of  having  them 
as  witnesses  on  these  trials. 

Mr.  Thayer,  as  counsel  for  the  Lorain  Coun 
ty  officers,  stated  to  the  Court  that  the  arrest 
was  made  subject  to  the  claim  of  the  Court,  and 
he  asked  this  Court  to  order,  when  the  witnesses 
should  be  discharged,  that  they  be  delivered 
into  the  custody  of  the  Lorain  Sheriff.  The 
Court  said  it  would  take  the  matter  under  ad 
visement.  The  Lorain  Deputy- Sheriff  made 
the  arrest  and,  with  his  assistants,  took  seat  be 
side  Jennings  and  Mitchell  within  the  bar  cir 
cle.  There  the  matter  rested,  and  the  trial 
proceeded.] 

Mr.  Wack,  the  tavern-keeper  at  Oberlin, 
was  then  called. 

Cliauncey  Wack.  Live  in  Oberlin.  Did  in 
September  last.  Saw  something  of  a  gathering 
at  Oberlin  on  the  13th  of  September.  There 
were  a  hundred  in  the  crowd  ;  twelve  or  fifteen 
guns.  This  was  at  one  o'clock.  Know  de 
fendant.  Did  not  see  him  in  Oberlin  at  all. 
Did  not  see  him  start  for  Wellington.  Saw 
eight  or  ten  start  for  there.  I  went.  Got  there 
at°half  past  two.  A  great  many  arrived  at 
Wellington  after  I  did  —  but  few  preceded  me. 
Saw  Langston  at  Wellington  in  the  crowd  be 
fore  Wadsworth's  Hotel.  First  saw  him  there, 
some  time  before  the  Rescue.  Think  about  4, 
p.  M.  Moving  around  in  the  crowd.  Did  not 
hear  him  say  any  thing.  He  was  moving  around 
like  the  rest  of  the  crowd.  When  I  first  saw 
him  he  was  on  the  ground.  There  were  from 
three  hundred  to  four  hundred  in  the.  crowd, 
right  about  the  building. 

[During  the  examination  of  Wack,  Marshal 
Johnson  very  suddenly  appeared  and  removed 
Jennings  and  Mitchell  from  the  vicinity  of  the 
deputy-sheriff  of  Lorain  county,  and  placed 
them  apart  from  said  officer,  and  outside  the 
bar  circle,  and  at  the  left  of  the  judge's  seat. 
The  Marshal  then  removed  the  Deputy-Sheriff 
of  Lorain  county,  and  the  officers  who  were 
with  him,  from  the  bar  circle  to  the  right  of  the 
Judge's  seat. 

Mr.  RIDDLE  then  asked  if  Mr.  Lowe  (who 
was  within  the  circle)  was  a  member  of  the 
bar.  Marshal  Johnson  replied  that  Mr.  Lowe 


104 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


•was  his  deputy,  appointed  that  afternoon,  and 
had  a  right  to  remain  Avithin  the  bar  circle. 

The  trial  again  proceeded.] 

.  .  .  This  speech  of  Patton's  was  after  the 
train  had  passed.  It  was  but  a  little  while 
after  this  that  I  saw  the  rush  to  take  him  out. 
Saw  Langston  on  the  balcony  above.  Did  not 
see  him  in  the  rush.  It  was  not  five  minutes 
after  this  that  John  came  down  stairs.  The 
crowd  cheered  some  —  threw  up  their  hats. 
Did  not  hear  defendant  say  any  thing.  Saw 
him  moving  about  in  the  crowd  like  the  rest  of 
them.  Did  not  see  him  at  the  meeting  after 
the  rescue.  .  .  . 

Cross-examined.  Knew  Langston  in  1844 
and  1845.  Knew  him  well.  I  could  distin 
guish  him  at  that  distance.  It  was  about  4, 
p.  M.  that  I  first  saw  Langston.  John  had 
made  his  speech  before  this.  The  speech  was 
made  soon  after  we  got  to  Wellington.  Saw 
defendant  do  nothing  except  move  'round. 
Saw  defendant  once  on  the  balcony,  but 
whether  it  was  at  the  time  Bennett  was  there 
I  cannot  say.  Did  not  see  defendant  at  either 
time  the  rush  was  made.  Patton  wanted  them 
to  go  to  Elyria  to  get  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
He  was  the  only  one  I  distinctly  heard  recom 
mending  this.  Did  not  hear  many  others  rec 
ommend  going  to  Elyria  for  papers,  but  urging 
that  the  papers  were  right.  Heard  John  Cope- 
land  and  Jerry  Fox  say  they  did  not  care  for 
papers,  they'd  have  him  any  how.  Heard 
similar  threats  from  twenty.  Don't  know  who 
said  they  had  better  wait  to  see  whether  the 
soldiers  would  come.  Cannot  state  any  other 
one  person  that  made  these  threats.  Did  not 
see  Lowe  with  Patton  when  he  was  on  the 
stoop.  The  first  rush  was  about  4,  p.  M.  Some 
of  the  threats  were  about  this  time ;  some,  at 
the  time  of  the  last  rush.  Don't  know  that  I 
saw  defendant  before  the  first  rush.  Don't 
think  I  saw  him  on  the  balcony  when  Bennett 
was  there.  There  were  very  few  on  the  bal 
cony  with  him.  Defendant  might  have  been 
there.  I  thought  Davis  came  out  with  John 
when  he  made  a  speech  on  the  balcony.  Did 
not  see  Jennings  there.  I  was  in  among  the 
guns  and  could  not  see  well.  The  crowd  were 
excited.  Some  of  them  said  John  had  come 
out  to  say  he  wanted  to  go  home.  I  noticed 
Davis  with  John  on  the  balcony,  but  no  one 
else.  Shouldn't  think  John  had  got  through 
with  his  speech  from  his  appearance.  John 
Copeland  called  to  John  not  to  say  any  thing. 
I  thought  Davis  put  his  hand  on  him  and  he 
went  in.  I  got  there  at  2,  P.  M.  Was  moving 
'round.  Did  not  stay  long  in  one  place. 

George  W.  Ells.  Live  in  Oberlin.  Have 
for  eight  or  ten  years.  Remember  the  time 
John  is  said  to  have  been  rescued.  Was  at 
the  meeting  held  that  night.  Think  likely  I 
saw  the  defendant  there.  Heard  his  voice. 
Various  topics  were  spoken  of.  Don't  know 
but  I  heard  him  say  something  about  what  had 
been  done  at  Wellington.  Said  the  slave  was 


brought  back.  Don't  remember  any  thing  else 
that  was  said.  A  remark  was  made  that  he 
should  not  call  names.  Was  there  but  a  short 
time.  Think  Langston  was  through  before  I 
left  the  meeting.  I  was  there  fifteen  minutes 
or  thereabouts.  Saw  some  of  the  crowd  that 
went  to  Wellington  that  day.  Was  there  about 
1  o'clock.  Did  not  see  defendant  there.  Some 
of  the  persons  at  Oberlin  had  arms.  Don't 
know  whether  defendant  lived  in  Oberlin  then. 
The  meeting  was  held  on  the  corner  of  the 
square.  There  might  have  been  thirty  or  forty 
there.  Cannot  tell  what  time  in  the  evening, 
but  it  was  a  little  after  dark.  Have  not 
seen  John  since  some  time  before  he  was  cap 
tured. 

Norris  A.  Wood  Live  at  Oberlin.  Have 
for  three  or  four  years.  Am  acquainted  with 
defendant.  Have  been  a  year  or  two.  He  has 
made  it  his  home  at  his  brother  John's  most  of 
the  time.  Think  he  was  in  Oberlin  on  the  13th 
of  last  September.  Saw  him  in  Wellington 
that  day ;  am  not  certain  as  to  seeing  him  at 
Oberlin.  It  was  the  middle  of  the  afternoon 
or  after,  that  I  saw  him  at  Wellington.  When 
I  saw  him  the  first  time,  it  was  between  the 
buildings  leading  to  the  barn,  in  the  alley — 
back  of  the  mam  part  of  the  house.  I  and 
another  man  (Marks,  I  think),  were  sitting  on 
a  box  when  he  came  up  and  shook  hands.  The 
crowd  was  all  around  the  house.  Guards  were 
stationed  at  all  the  corners.  Some  were  armed, 
some  were  not. 

It  was  hard  telling  what  was  said  in  the 
crowd.  The  general  cry  was,  to  get  the  negro 
away  from  the  Southerners.  Some  threats 
were  made.  .  .  .  Don't  know  that  I  heard 
which  held  him.  Some  said  they  had  papers  — 
some  that  they  were  good  for  nothing  —  some 
that  they  kidnapped  him.  They  had  it  at 
Oberlin  and  at  Wellington,  when  we  first  got 
there,  that  he  was  kidnapped.  Some  contra 
dicted  it  —  some  altered  their  minds.  Did  not 
hear  any  one  come  out  and  speak  to  the  crowd. 
I  was  at  the  sides  of  the  house,  its  front,  and  its 
rear.  I  was  there  when  the  general  rush  was 
made  on  the  back  side  of  the  house.  This  was 
fifteen  to  thirty  minutes  before  the  rescue.  I 
won't  be  certain  wliether  Langston  went  in  or 
not,  but  he  was  there  on  the  platform.  Willson 
Evans,  John  Copeland,  etc.,  were  there.  Fay, 
I  understand  now,  was  the  man  that  stood  at 
the  door.  They  were  as  thick  as  they  could  be 
on  the  stoop.  Defendant  was  in  the  crowd. 
Won't  say  he  went  in.  The  crowd  were  urg 
ing  the  man  at  the  door  to  let  them  »o  in. 
Some  were  coaxing,  some  said  they  would  go 
in,  some  said  they  would  shoot,  some  said  they 
would  shoot  the  crowd.  These  were  those  at 
the  door.  .  ,  .  Langston  was  with  three  or  four 
persons  back  from  the  door.  W.  Evans,  John 
Copeland,  and  Jerry  Fox  were  right  in  the 
gangway.  Defendant  was  back  three  or  four 
persons  from  the  door.  Don't  know  as  I  can 
name  any  others.  Evans  took  hold  of  the  man 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


105 


that  stood  in  the  door,  pushed  him  in,  and  then 
the  crowd  rushed  in.  Did  not  notice  that  de 
fendant  rushed  in.  He  was  on  the  platform. 
Did  not  see  him  again  that  day.  I  then  went 
round  in  front.  Fifteen  or  twenty  were  on 
the  back  platform.  The  biggest  part  of  the 
crowd  were  in  front.  The  platform  is  three  or 
four  feet  wide  —  fifteen  or  twenty  were  on  it. 
I  left  soon  after;  went  round  in  front.  I 
thought  C.  T.  Marks  was  sitting  on  the  box 
with  me.  Defendant  came  up  and  shook  hands 
with  me.  I  spoke  to  him.  This  was  some  fif 
teen  or  twenty  feet  from  the  platform.  I  said 
to  him,  "  there  is  quite  a  crowd  here."  He 
said  "  yes ;  he  thought  they  turned  out  well." 
Then  I  asked  him  what  they  were  going  to  do. 
He  said,  "  they  have  got  the  papers  out  to  take 
those  men  —  the  Southerners."  I  told  him  the 
constable  would  n't  act  without  bonds.  He  said, 
they  would  have  him  any  way ;  "  ice  will  have 
him  any  way."  Don't  know  that  he  said  any 
thing  about  their  papers.  David  Watson  came 
up  and  asked  him  where  his  gun  was.  He 
opened  his  coat,  and  said  "  here 's  my  gun."  It 
looked  like  a  pistol.  Watson  and  defendant 
then  went  up  to  the  corner  of  the  house,  at  the 
end  of  the  platform.  It  was  half  an  hour  after 
this  that  I  saw  him  on  the  platform  in  the  crowd. 
Don't  know  where  defendant  had  been  in  the 
mean  time. 

[Just  before  the  hour  of  adjournment  the  COURT 
said  the  marshal  had  returned  the  writ  by  which 
he  held  Jennings  and  Mitchell  in  custody ;  that 
unless  the  witnesses  could  give  bail  for  their  ap 
pearance  as  such  witnesses,  the  Court  would  be 
obliged,  to  commit  them.  The  witnesses,  Jen 
nings  and  Mitchell,  said  they  could  not  give  bail, 
and  thereupon  the  Court  ordered  them  into  the 
custody  of  the  marshal. 

Mr.  THAYER  then  renewed  his  request  that 
the  Court  order  those  men  to  be  held  subject  to 
the  arrest  as  made  by  the  Lorain  County  Sheriff, 
so  that  when  these  trials  are  over,  they  might 
not  be  spirited  away,  and  thus  escape  the  offi 
cers  of  Lorain  County. 

The  COURT  remarked,  that  the  arrest  thus 
made  was  an  unheard-of  proceeding,  and  a  con 
tempt,  for  which  the  party  making  it  was  liable 
to  arrest. 

Mr.  THAYER  replied,  that  there  was  no  in 
tention  of  disturbing  the  Court,  but  that  it  was 
well  known  that  Jennings  and  Mitchell  had  not 
been  out  of  the  building  for  two  weeks,  and  no 
other  opportunity  was  offered  for  their  arrest  on 
the  indictment  found  against  them  in  Lorain, 
and  the  intention  was  to  make  the  arrest  sub 
ject  to  the  prior  claim  of  this  Court. 

The  COURT  remarked,  that  when  it  had  got 
through  with  the  witnesses,  it  would  be  time  to 
argue  that  matter. 

The  marshal  removed  the  two  men  into  the 
Judge's  room,  and  the  Court  adjourned.] 

FOURTH  DAY. — MORNING  SESSION.       * 
Heard  nothing  in  the  crowd  as  to  the  circum- 

14 


stances  under  which  the  Southerners  held  John. 
Butler  came  to  me  and  wanted  a  horse  to  go  to 
Elyria.  He  was  then  speaking  about  the  pa 
pers  the  Southerners  had.  Said  they  were  good. 
Said  they  could  not  get  John  without  they  went 
to  Elyria  to  get  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  take 
John.  Told  him  I  had  no  horse  —  referred  him 
to  Marks.  He  went  to  him.  Don't  know  what 
was  said.  Crowd  were  passing  back  and  forth. 
Some  were  saying  they  would  have  him  if  they 
had  to  tear  the  house  down.  Some  said  they 
would  get  papers.  The  report  was,  that  the 
Southerners  had  telegraphed  for  the  Cleveland 
Grays.  Some  wanted  to  go  into  the  house  and 
take  him  before  they  came.  They  said  if  they 
did  not  they  could  not  get  him  at  all.  This 
conversation  was  along  at  different  times  —  not 
at  any  one  time.  It  was  after  the  train  came 
in,  I  think,  that  I  was  sitting  on  the  box.  Don't 
know  how  defendant  went  to  Wellington.  The 
first  I  saw  of  him,  was  when  I  saw  him  sitting 
on  the  box  there.  I  came  along  just  as  they 
were  speaking  at  the  meeting  in  the  evening  at 
Oberlin.  Did  not  hear  what  was  said.  I  just 
halted.  Heard  nothing  said  about  "  the  law," 
except  what  I  have  testified.  I  knew  John.  Ho 
worked  for  me  once  in  May,  185G.  In  June 
also,  some,  and  in  August,  lie  was  pretty  dark. 
A  dark  negro.  Think  he  was  a  full-blooded  ne 
gro.  He  had  a  large  leg.  One  that  turned 
back  when  he  stood  up.  I  weighed  him  in  1856. 
He  weighed  162  pounds.  He  was  sick  in  1858  ; 
was  bloated.  Saw  him  at  Deacon  Armstrong's. 
Know  when  he  came  from  Kentucky,  only  from 
what  he  told  me.  When  he  was  brought  out 
on  the  platform,  Jennings  said  any  one  had  the 
privilege  to  ask  him  any  thing.  I  was  the  first 
to  ask  him  if  he  wanted  to  go  back.  He  said 
he  supposed  he  would  have  to  go  back.  He 
said  they  had  got  the  papers  for  him.  Then 
two  or  three  or  more  men  spoke  up.  Some 
said,  "jump;"  a  good  many  hollered,  "jump 
down,"  "jump  off."  John  Copeland  stood  right 
beside  me,  drew  his  gun  by  my  shoulder,  and 
told  John  to  jump,  and  he  would  shoot  the 
damned  old  rascal.  I  stepped  down.  The  gun 
was  pointed  by  me  at  the  man.  Soon  they 
turned  round  and  went  in,  Jennings  taking  hold 
of  John  when  they  went  in.  This  was  before 
the  occurrence  in  the  rear,  of  which  I  have 
spoken.  Cannot  tell  the  time  exactly.  Was 
in  the  hall  when  John  was  rescued.  There  is  a 
portico  in  front  of  the  Hotel.  The  hall  runs 
through  the  centre  of  the  house.  .  .  . 

Cross-examined.  About  1  o'clock  in  the  af 
ternoon  I  first  heard  of  the  capture. 

Half  an  hour  after  this  1  left.  Bartholomew 
came  along  and  said  they'd  got  John.  I  went 
down  in  front  of  Watson's.  There  were  ten  or 
fifteen  there.  Lyman  was  then  telling  that  he 
had  met  John  on  his  way  to  Wellington.  Was 
considerable  running.  I  did  not  run.  I  was 
excited.  Did  not  go  down  to  rescue  John. 
Know  that  some  did.  Marks  went  with  me. 
Suppose  he  went  for  the  same  purpose  I  did  — 


106 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


curiosity.  Marks  drove.  "Wack  went  with  us. 
Ho  went  to  inquire,  about  a  counterfeit  bill  the 
Southerners  had  passed  on  him.  Wack  thought 
the  bill  was  good,  but  he  said  he  had  been  to 
Kcllogg's,  and  they  told  him  the  bill  was  not  good. 
This  was  about  two,  P.  M.  Don't  recollect  who 
I  heard  say  he  was  goino;  to  rescue  John.  John 
Watson  said  John  was  kidnapped,  and  he  would 
have  John,  dead  or  alive.  Cannot  name  any 
other  one  that  said  this.  John  Copeland  was 
there.  Don't  know  what  he  said.  Some  said 
they  had  papers  for  John  there  at  Oberlin. 
Some  said  they  were  good,  and  some  said 
they  were  good  for  nothing.  It  might  have 
been  the  first  time  I  was  at  Watson's  that 
I  heard  about  the  papers.  Stopped  there 
perhaps  five  minutes.  Some  said  they  might 
have  papers.  No  one  said  they  had  pa 
pers.  Won't  be  certain  that  it  was  said  that 
those  that  took  John  were  the  same  that  had 
tried  to  take  the  Waggoners.  The  understand 
ing  was  that  Munson  was  one  of  the  men,  Day 
ton  one,  and  the  Southerners.  The  cry  was 
that  he  was  kidnapped.  That  they  had  got 
Boynton's  son  to  take  him  out  of  town.  Watson 
had  started  before  we  went.  We  passed  ten  or 
fifteen  teams.  Did  not  j?ass  Watson.  .  .  . 
We  got  a  ladder  and  put  it  up.  Marks  helped 
me.  He  was  standing  by  me  when  the  ladder 
was  put  up.  I  went  up  the  ladder.  Not  to 
rescue  John.  Did  not  put  up  the  ladder  to  help 
rescue  John.  Did  it  for  curiosity.  There  were 
many  others,  I  suppose,  in  the  same  situation  as 
myself.  A  man  threatened  to  shoot  me.  Marks 
followed  me  about  half  way  up  the  ladder.  I 
told  the  man  at  the  top  of  the  ladder  who 
threatened  to  shoot  me, "  to  shoot  and  be  d — d." 
I  went  into  the  hall  on  the  second  floor.  John 
was  passed  down  as  I  stood  in  the  hall.  Cannot 
say  whether  I  was  gone  when  John  went  off. 
Did  not  cheer.  Don't  know  as  I  heard  the  cry, 
"•  fetch  him  down,"  before  I  went  up  the  ladder. 
Direct-examination,  resumed.  Langston,  in 
his  conversation  with  me,  said,  "  we  will  have 
him  (John)  any  way."  I  was  owing  John 
money.  lie  came  to  me  Sunday  evening.  Said 
he  was  going  home. 

FOURTH  DAY. — AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

He  had  been  talking  of  going  home  before. 
I  paid  him  what  I  owed  him.  He  shook  hands 
with  me  and  left.  [There  was  a  long  discussion 
upon  the  admissibility  of  this  evidence.  The 
COURT,  on  reflection  held  with  the  Prosecution, 
and  received  it.]  He  had  told  me  before,  in 
the  harvest-field,  that  as  soon  as  he  got  money 
enough  he  was  going  home  to  his  master  in 
Kentucky.  Did  not  say  who  his  master  was. 
He  started  to  go  in  September. 

Cross-examination  resumed.  Worked  for  me 
eleven  days  in  August.  Don't  know  what  time 
in  August.  Gave  John  one  dollar  a  day.  Paid 
John  five  dollars  then.  This  was  in  September, 
I  think 

Wm.  B~  Warden.    Live  in  Oberlin.    Have 


for  five  or  six  years.  Was  there  September 
13,  1858.  Saw  some  of  the  people  go  to 
Wellington.  I  saw  some  of  the  crowd  before 
they  started.  Saw  some  near  Watson's.  Some 
were  armed.  I  did  not  notice  any  other  weap 
ons  but  guns.  They  claimed  that  they  had 
taken  a  fugitive  slave  away  from  there,  and  they 
were  going  after  him.  This  was  about  two  or 
half  past  two.  I  did  not  go  to  Wellington. 
Did  not  see  defendant  that  day  at  Oberlin,  un 
til  the  evening.  Did  not  see  Jerry  Fox  in  that 
crowd  nor  Richard  Whitney.  I  am  a  carpen 
ter  and  joiner.  Saw  defendant  in  the  evening 
in  the  street  and  on  the  corner  of  the  public 
square.  There  was  some  speaking  there.  Saw 
him  at  the  meeting.  He  spoke  there.  There 
were  quite  a  number  there.  Three  or  four 
spoke  that  evening.  I  was  in  the  meeting  half 
an  hour  or  an  hour,  I  should  think.  Heard 
what  some  of  the  speakers  said  in  the  meeting. 
Defendant  was  there  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  of 
the  time.  Heard  him  speak.  He  said  in  sub 
stance  (cannot  give  the  words).  It  was  a  kind 
of  a  history  of  what  had  occurred  at  Welling 
ton.  Don't  know  how  he  came  to  give  it.  The 
principal  thing  he  said  was,  that  they  had  been 
to  Wellington  and  brought  John  home,  or  res 
cued  him.  Think  he  stated  how  it  was  done, 
but  I  cannot  tell  how  it  was.  Don't  think  I 
could  state  what  he  said  he  had  done  at  Wel 
lington.  He  said  he  was  acquainted  with  Lowe, 
and  had  talked  with  him.  Don't  recollect  what 
he  said  the  conversation  was  between  him  and 
Lowe.  Was  there  when  he  commenced  speak 
ing.  Don't  know  what  he  stood  on.  Saw  de 
fendant  when  he  first  got  up.  Think  he  spoke 
ten  or  fifteen  minutes.  Cannot  give  the  ex 
pressions  he  made. 

Cross-examined.  Sheppard  made  the  first 
speech.  John  Langston  the  last. 

Philip  Kelly.  .  .  .  Was  at  the  meeting  in 
Oberlin  in  the  evening,  during  part  of  the"  ex 
ercises.  Defendant  was  there  and  spoke  to  the 
meeting.  He  came  on  the  stand  by  request. 
The  crowd  hollered, "  Charlie  Langston."  John 
Langston  had  been  speaking  just  before.  John 
Langston  said  he  was  not  at  Wellington  him 
self, —  but  he  would  call  on  one  who  was  there. 
Defendant  then  took  the  stand.  He  went  on 
to  state  what  had  happened  at  Wellington 
while  he  was  there.  Said  that  when  he  got 
there,  Lowe  sent  down  for  him.  That  he  went 
up  to  see  Mr.  Lowe.  That  Lowe  asked  him  to 
assist  him  in  pacifying  the  crowd.  Said  he  tcld 
him  he  would  not  assist, —  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it ;  that  it  was  no  use  for  them  to  try 
to  keep  John,  for  they  would  have  him  any 
way.  I  don't  recollect  of  any  thing  else  that 
he  said.  Don't  remember  that  I  heard  him  say 
any  thing  else.  Said  they  had  got  him  and 
brought  him  back.  Did  not  see  John  there 
that  night. 

Jacob  Wheeler.  .  .  .  About  the  time  I^got 
my  two  last  brothers  in,  three  men  came  into 
the  room,  from  the  back  way.  These  three 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


107 


•were  Win.  Sciples,  Walter  Soules,  and  John 
Mandeville.  Ihey  begun  to  get  up  cpiite  an 
excitement.  Saw  a  buggy  drive  up  before  this. 
The  men  in  it  were  swinging  their  hats.  Not 
much  excitement  before  this.  The  papers  were 
handed  out  to  Sciples,  Soules,  and  Mandeville. 
They  came  in  in  an  abrupt  way.  Lowe  called 
on  them  to  assist  him  in  keeping  the  slave,  he 
held  and  showed  them  the  authority  he  had 
for  taking  him.  .  .  .  Told  the  crowd  that  Dick- 
son  said  he  had  been  in  to  see  the  Southerners 
and  saw  nothing  wrong  except  he  did  not  see 
the  wnl  on  the  warrant.  .  .  .  Noticed  defendant 
that  afternoon  several  times. 

FIFTH  DAY. — MORNING  SESSION. 

As  a  general  thing,  when  I  saw  defendant 
he  seemed  to  be  conversing  with  Patton  and 
others  on  the  best  course  and  the  proper  course 
to  be  pursued  to  get  the  slave.  Langston  said 
the  best  way  and  only  proper  way  to  get  him 
•would  be  to  take  out  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
And  he  proposed  if  they  would  get  a  horse,  to 
go  himself  to  Elyria  for  one.  I  also  heard  him 
speak  to  others  to  keep  cool.  I  saw  him  two 
or  three  times  — three  or  four  times,  in  the  af 
ternoon.  He  appeared  to  be  excited,  he  and 
Patton  were  going  in  when  his  advice  was  to 
keep  quiet  and  proceed  legally.  Have  stated 
all  that  I  heard  defendant  say. 

Charles  Wadsworth.  Lived  in  Wellington 
in  September  last.  Son  of  the  landlord.  Saw 
Defendant  as  I  was  standing  on  the  top  of  the 
portico.  I  went  away  at  five  o'clock.  This 
was  about  four.  Langston  came  out  from  the 
hall  into  the  porch.  I  asked  him  if  the  papers 
which  the  slaveholders  had  were  all  right.  He 
said  it  made  no  difference  whether  they  were 
right  or  not,  they  were  bound  to  have  John 
any  way.  Saw  him  walking  up  and  down  stairs 
three  or  four  times.  I  went  away  a  little  after 
the  train  passed.  Don't  know  that  I  saw  de 
fendant  in  the  crowd.  There  might  have  been 
ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  allowed  to  go  up  stairs  to 
the  room  where  John  was,  while  I  was  there. 

Edmund  S.  Lyman.  Been  five  years  in 
Oberlin.  Know  defendant.  Know  his  brother 
John  well.  Don't  know  where  John  Langston 
was  on  the  13th  of  September.  About  the 
time  the  crowd  left  I  saw  it,  but  not  defend 
ant.  I  went  to  Wellington.  Saw  defendant 
there  but  not  John.  Noticed  defendant  a  num 
ber  of  times.  Saw  him  as  I  was  round  the  ho 
tel  standing  'round.  Was  at  the  meeting  at 
Oberlin  that  evening.  Think  most  of  the  peo 
ple  that  were  at  Wellington  heard  the  speeches. 
Cannot  tell  who  spoke  first,  nor  how  defendant 
was  called  out.  Heard  defendant  say  that  they 
had  been  to  Wellington  and  got  the  slave.  Lin 
coln  was  mentioning  names  and  some  one  said, 
"  call  no  names."  Heard  at  Wellington  in  the 
crowd  that  the  papers  were  not  right.  Defend 
ant  was  giving  the  particulars  of  what  hap 
pened  at  Wellington. 

Marshall  T.  Gaston.     Have  lived  in  Oberlin 


twelve  years.  Was  there  Sept.  13th.  Did  not 
go  to  Wellington.  Saw  the  crowd  that  went, 
in  front  of  Watson's  store.  Do  not  remember 
to  have  seen  Langston  then.  Was  there  when 
the  crowd  returned.  Saw  defendant.  Heard 
part  of  the  speeches.  Saw  the  crowd  returning 
from  Wellington.  Shepherd  spoke  first. 

[Here  Mr.  BACKUS  arose,  and  with  most  de 
termined  manner  pointed  to  Mr.  Belden,  and 
said  this  farce  had  gone  far  enough  —  he  want 
ed  Mr.  Belden  to  say  whether  he  expected  to 
show  the  negro  John  was  in  that  crowd  or  not. 
Mr.  BELDEN  thus  pressed  did  not  come  to  that 
point. 

The  COURT  held  that  what  that  crowd  said 
at  Oberlin,  in  the  evening  after  the  rescue,  was 
not-  admissible  unless  the  negro  John  was  with 
them,  and  therefore  the  assemblage  was  a  con 
tinuous  act  with  the  doings  at  Wellington. 
What  the  defendant  said  m  his  speech  was 
evidence,  but  that  only. 

Mr.  BELDEN  finally  said  he  expected  to 
prove  the  negro  was  there.] 

Shepherd  moved  for  three  groans  for  Dayton 
and  three  cheers  for  the  Rescue  of  John.  Said 
that  Winsor  and  Bushnell  had  brought  John  to 
Oberlin  and  he  was  there  then.  [Which  of 
course  "  Shepherd "  never  said.']  Langston 
was  asked  if  they  had  got  John.  He  said  "  we 
have."  Said  Dayton  had  gone  off  on  the  rail 
road  his  coat-tail  flying  behind. 

As  we  are  following  the  course  of  events 
chronologically,  the  spicy  episode  of  the 

KIDNAPPING  OF  A  WHITE  MAX 

properly  comes  in  here.  We  know  that  the 
charge  of  kidnapping  is  a  grave  one  to  bring 
against  an  U.  S.  officer,  claiming  to  act  under 
the  sanction  of  his  oath,  and  with  the  approval 
of  his  superiors.  But  if  the  facts  do  not  support 
the  charge  to  the  reader's  satisfaction,  he  may 
Avrite  any  phrase  that  seems  to  him  more  ac 
curately  truthful. 

The  Court  had  committed  Bushnell  to  the 
custody  of  the  Marshal  to  await  its  further 
order.  The  remaining  nineteen  who  were  so 
summarily  and  causelessly  imprisoned  were 
ordered  into  the  custody  of  the  Marshal,  to  be 
by  him  conveyed  to  the  jail  of  Cuyahoga 
county,  there  to  await  the  further  order  of  the 
Court.  But  the  Marshal  choosing  to  intrust 
his  prisoner  to  the  custody  of  the  Sheriff  also, 
made  the  same  indorsement  upon  all  the 
mittimi,  commanding  the  Sheriff  in  each  case 
to  hold  the  prisoners  subject  to  the  order  of 
the  Honorable  United  States  District  and  Cir 
cuit  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio, 
and  thus  parted  with  whatever  control  of  his 


108 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


prisoner  he  might  previously  have  had ;  the 
committal  being  precisely  the  same  thing  as  a 
deposit  of  one's  own  money  to  the  credit  of 
another. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  custody,  about  10 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  this  day  —  Friday, 
April  22d  —  one  of  the  Court  House  bailiffs 
called  at  the  jail  and  said  that  Mr.  Bushnell 
was  wanted  in  Court  a  few  minutes.  As  Prof. 
Peck,  Mr.  Plumb,  and  occasionally  others  had 
been  wanted,  either  by  their  counsel  or  the 
Court  for  one  purpose  or  another,  and  as  per 
fect  good  faith  had  been  maintained  on  both 
sides  thus  far,  there  seemed  no  reason  why  the 
Sheriff  should  insist  upon  forms,  and  he  told 
Bushnell  to  get  ready  and  go.  During  the 
preparation,  the  bailiff  was-  careful  to  repeat 
that  Mr.  Bushnell  was  only  wanted  in  Court  a 
few  minutes,  and  would  be  speedily  and  safely 
returned.  Mrs.  Bushnell  standing  by,  was  in 
vited  to  accompany  her  husband,  and  together 
with  the  Sheriff  did  so.  As  they  were  passing 
the  door  of  the  Marshal's  office,  which  is  on  the 
second  floor,  the  bailiff  said  carelessly,  "  Mr. 
Bushnell,  Marshal  Johnson  would  like  to  see 
you  barely  a  moment  before  you  go  up  to 
Court ; "  and  Bushnell,  in  his  honest  simplicity, 
with  his  wife  upon  his  arm  turned  into  the 
office,  the  bailiff  and  Sheriff  Wightman  passing 
on  to  the  Court  Room. 

Mr.  Bushnell  tells  us  that,  immediately  on 
entering  the  Marshal's  presence,  he  was  — 
apart  from  his  wife —  invited  into  an  adjoining 
room,  and  the  next  moment  found  himself 
alone,  and  the  MARSHAL'S  prisoner  ! 

The  Sheriff  tells  us  that  he  had  not  reached 
his  seat  in  the  Court  Room  before  Marshal 
Johnson  caught  his  shoulder  from  behind,  and 
in  quite  a  fluster  demanded  the  mittimus  by 
which  Bushnell  was  committed  to  his  keeping ! 
He  was  answered  simply  that  it  was  not  in  his 
pocket.  At  once  it  flashed  upon  the  Sheriff's 
mind  that  Johnson  would  .doubtless  send  to  the 
jail  for  it,  and  some  one  might  thoughtlessly  let 
it  go.  Hastening  thither,  he  barely  preceded 
—  sure  enough  —  another  bailiff,  who  demanded 
"  Bushnell's  mittimus."  Mr.  Wightman  then 
explained  that  a  mittimus  could  never  be  sur 
rendered,  but  must  remain  on  perpetual  file  as 
the  jailer's  only  protection  against  a  suit  from 
his  prisoner  for  causeless  detention;  adding, 
that  if  Marshal  Johnson  wanted  the  custody  of 


Bushnell  he  had  only  to  get  an  order  from  the 
Court,  and  all  would  be  right.  The  bailiff 
urged  that  Mr.  Johnson  had  sent  for  the  mitti 
mus,  but  was  obliged  to  return  empty-handed. 

For  this  singular  conduct,  the  Marshal  gave 
at  various  times,  and  to  various  persons,  very 
different  and  often  contradictory  reasons.  At 
first  he  plead  the  relentless  order  of  the  District- 
Attorney  ;  then  confessed  his  own  motion ;  then 
urged  the  advice  of  the  District- Attorney,  etc., 
etc.  As  to  the  deceit  used  by  his  deputy,  he 
first  denied  that  he  knew  any  thing  about  it, 
then  attempted  to  extenuate  it,  and  finally  ex 
plicitly  refused  to  disown  or  condemn  it.  The 
underlying  occasion  of  the  whole  transaction, 
however,  he  uniformly  said  was  a  rumor  that 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  issued  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  in  Bushnell's  behalf, 
and  he  thought  if  he  got  Bushnell  into  his  cus 
tody  the  writ  would  be  served  on  him,  and  he 
should  have  the  pleasure  of  obeying  it !  He 
earnestly  declared  that  he  had  never  once 
thought  of  doing  otherwise  than  obeying  it 
When  asked  if  he  supposed  the  writ  would  be 
served  upon  any  one  except  the  person  who 
legally  had  the  relator  in  custody,  his  replies  were 
seriously  confused.  Still  he  retained  his  man. 
For  six  days  Mr.  Bushnell  was  kept  thus  indun- 
gconed  in  the  Court  House,  with  a  guard  at 
the  outside  door  by  day  and  by  night.  As  his 
quarters  were  comfortable,  so  far  as  the  mere 
necessities  of  the  body  were  concerned,  and 
there  was  no  attempt  to  remove  him  elsewhere, 
the  sheriff  chose  to  indulge  the  marshal  in  his 
fancy  rather  than  precipitate  what  might  have 
proved  a  serious  collision.  No  one  could  ques 
tion  the  illegality  of  the  marshal's  conduct,  and 
the  sheriff  was  not  accustomed  to  shrink  from 
unpleasant  duty ;  but  his  personal  sympathies 
were  known  to  be  so  strongly  on  the  side  of  his 
prisoner,  that  he  judged  it  best  to  permit  the 
duress  for  the  time  being. 

Mrs.  Bushnell,  with  her  little  child,  was  her 
husband's  constant  companion  in  this  solitary 
confinement. 

We  return  now  to  resume  the  current  of  Mr. 
Langston's  trial. 

FIFTH  DAY.  —  AFTERXOON  SESSION. 

Artemas  S.  Halbert.  Live  in  Oberlin.  Did 
in  September  last.  Know  defendant  Have 
for  six  months,  perhaps  eight  ...  It  was  not 
Ions  before  some  started.  Watson  went  first 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


109 


Scott  went  Wilson  and  Henry  Evans,  Lin 
coln  and  Buslmell.  Did  not  see  defendant.  1 
went  to  Wellington.  Got  there  about  3,  p.  M. 
Saw  defendant  there.  Saw  him  first  in  a  lane 
that  went  from  the  street  to  the  barn.  There 
were  quite  a  number,  fifteen  or  twenty  in  the 
alley.  They  were  talking  about  getting  a 
paper  to  indemnify  the  constable  against  costs, 
if  he  served  a  warrant  issued  for  the  arrest  of 
the  slaveholders.  Some  one  asked  Evans  if  he 
would  n't  sign  the  paper.  Don't  remember 
who  it  was.  It  was  some  one  that  was  in  the 
alley.  Evans  said  he  would.  Watson  said  he 
had  or  would  sign  it.  Defendant  was  talking 
about  signing  it,  or  that  he  would  sign.  He 
was  talking  about  the  paper:  either  asking 
them  to  sign  it,  or  said  he  had  signed  it,  or 
would  sign  it.  I  saw  a  paper  that  was  handed 
to  Evans,  and  he  stepped  to  the  platform  to 
sign  it.  I  supposed  it  was  this.  Do  not  know 
what.  Some  said  the  constable  and  two  or 
three  men  with  him  had  gone  up  to  arrest 
them.  Think  I  heard  afterward  that  the  papers 
were  served  on  them,  but  that  they  would  not 
come  down.  The  crowd  said  that  those  fellows 
that  had  the  slave  wanted  to  take  him  to 
Columbus  and  then  have  a  trial.  But  they 
said  they  might  as  well  have  a  trial  there,  or  at 
Elyria.  These  remarks  were  common  through 
the  crowd  where  I  was.  It  seemed  to  be  un 
derstood  by  the  crowd  that  they  would  have 
him  any  way.  Don't  remember  to  have  seen 
Langston  after  I  saw  him  in  the  alley.  .  .  . 
When  I  got  home  and  had  put  out  my  horse, 
I  went  to  the  square.  Think  Langston  was 
speaking.  Could  not  tell  whether  it  was  de 
fendant  or  his  brother  John.  Could  not  tell 
what  was  said. 


At  this  juncture  the  DISTRICT- ATTOR 
NEY  informed  the  Court  that  a  notice  had  just 
been  served  upon  him  which  would  require  his 
immediate  official  attention,  and  would  possibly 
call  him  to  Columbus  before  he  could  go  on 
with  this  trial.  He  therefore  asked  a  continu 
ance  of  the  case  until  Monday,  which  was 
granted,  and  at  3  o'clock  the  Court  adjourned 
to  Monday  morning. 

The  nature  and  grounds  of  this  notice 
appear  in  the  following  extract  from  the  Cleve 
land  Leader  of  the  next  (Saturday)  morn 
ing:— 

THE  RESCUE  CASE  —  HABEAS  CORPUS.— 
In  the  Supreme  Court  yesterday,  an  applica 
tion  was  made  by  Judge  Spalding,  in  behalf  of 
the  citizens  of  Lorain  County,  now  confined  in 
the  jail  of  Cuyahoga  County,  by  order  of  the 
U.  S.  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District 
of  Ohio,  for  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

In  making  his  application,  Mr.  S.  remarked 


that,  under  this  proceeding,  he  proposed  to  ar 
raign  the  Congressional  enactment  of  1850  as 
an  excess  of  Legislative  power,  and  an  innova 
tion  upon  the  sovereign  prerogatives  of  the 
State,  which  alone  had  power  to  regulate,  by 
pains  and  penalties,  the  internal  police  of  _the 
commonwealth. 

He  insisted  that  this  tribunal  was  the  consti 
tutional  guardian  of  the  personal  liberty  of 
every  citizen  of  Ohio,  and,  as  such,  it  was  pe 
culiarly  fit  and  proper  that  it  should  take  cog 
nizance  of  any  infringement  of  this  great  right, 
whether  by  the  Federal  Court  or  any  other 
power. 

The  Court  entered  a  rule  on  the  United 
States  Marshal  of  the  Northern  District,  and 
Sheriff  of  Cuyahoga  County,  as  well  as  the 
United  States  District- Attorney  for  said  Nor 
thern  District,  to  show  cause  by  ten  o'clock  on 
Saturday,  the  23d  inst,  why  the  writ  of  ha 
beas  corpus  should  not  issue  according  to  the 
prayer  of  the  applicants. —  State  Journal,  22d. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  notice  served 
on  the  Marshal,  District- Attorney,  and  Sheriff. 
A  similar  notice  was  also  served  on  them  in  the 
Case  of  Bushnell :  — 


COURT  OF  OHIO,) 
Term,  A.  D.  1858.  J- 
ril  21,  A.  D.  1859.) 


SUPREME  COURT  or  OHIO, 

December  Term, 

To  wit  April 

On  motion  of  Charles  Langston,  John  Wat 
son,  Lorin  Wadsworth,  Robert  Winsor,  James 
R.  Shephard,  John  H.  Scott,  Ansel  W.  Lyman, 
William  E.  Lincoln,  Henry  E.  Evans,  Wilson 
Evans,  David  Watson,  Eli  Boyce,  James  Bart- 
lett,  Matthew  Gillett,  Oliver  F.  B.  Wall,  Daniel 
Williams,  Henry  E.  Peck,  Ralph  E.  Plumb, 
and  James  M.  Fitch,  citizens  of  the  County  of 
Lorain,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  by  Mr.  Spalding, 
their  Attorney,  and  it  being  made  to  appear 
that  they  are  restrained  of  their  liberty  in  the 
Jail  of  the  County  of  Cuyahoga  by  Matthew 
Johnson,  Marshal  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Northern  District  of  Ohio,  and  David  L.  Wight- 
man,  Sheriff  of  said  County  of  Cuyahoga,  it  is 
considered  by  the  Court  that  notice  of  the  pen 
dency  of  this  application  be  served  on  the  said 
Matthew  Johnson  and  David  L.  Wightman,  and 
also  upon  George  W.  Belden,  U.  S.  District- 
Attorney  for  said  Northern  District  of  Ohio, 
and  they  and  each  of  them  appear  before  this 
Court  on  Saturday,  the  twenty-third  day  of 
April,  A.  D.  1859,  at  ten  o'clock,  A.  M.  of  said 
day,  and  show  cause,  if  any  they  have,  why  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  in  this  behalf,  should 
not  issue  in  accordance  with  the  prayer  of  the 
applicants.  Ordered,  that  a  copy  of  this  jour 
nal  entry,  properly  certified  by  the  clerk,  be 
served  on  the  parties  as  the  notice  of  the  pen 
dency  of  the  above  application  for  a  habeas 
corpus.  , 

THE  STATE  OF  OHIO,  ss. 

I,  James  H.  Smith,  Clerk  of  the   Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  fore- 


110 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


going  entry  is  truly  taken  and  copied  from  the 
Journals  of  said  Court. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  subscribe 
my  name,  and  affix  the  seal  of  said 
[L.  S.]     Court,  at  Columbus,  this  twenty-first 
day  of  April,  A.  D.  1859. 

JAMES  H.  SMITH,  Clerk  S.  C. 

By  H.  S.  MILLER,  Dep. 

District- Attorney  Belden  was  not  a  little  ex 
cited  by  the  above  notice.  He  was  heard  to 
threaten  that  the  prisoners  should  not  be  taken 
to  Columbus  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  from 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  and  that  they 
could  not  be  taken  to  the  cars  save  through  the 
cannon's  mouth !  The  bravado  U.  S.  Officials 
evidently  contemplate  making  the  streets  of 
our  peaceful  city  bristle  with  U.  S.  bayonets ! 
The  U.  S.  District- Attorney  cooled  off  enough 
however  by  evening  to  take  the  train  to  Co 
lumbus.  Marshal  Johnson  remained  to  guard 
and  wait  upon  his  imprisoned  witnesses,  the 
kidnappers  Jennings  and  Mitchell,  and  the  con 
victed  Bushnell,  who  was  yesterday  disgrace 
fully  decoyed  from  the  county  jail  to  the  mar 
shal's  prison,  a-Za-fugitive  John  by  the  young 
villain  Boynton. 

The  opening  of  the  case  was  delayed  at  the 
request  of  the  District- Attorney,  from  Saturday 
morning  until  Monday  morning.  We  have 
been  able  to  find  no  better  report  of  the  argu 
ments  than  is  contained  in  the  next  two  articles, 
the  first  of  which  appeared  in  the  Daily  Ohio 
State  Journal  of  Tuesday  the  26th  of  April, 
and  the  second  in  the  same  paper  of  the  27th. 

THE  APPLICATION  FOR  HABEAS  CORPUS 
IN  THE  RESCUE  CASES.  —  The  application  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  for  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  on  behalf  of  the  gentlemen  now 
in  prison  in  Cleveland  for  an  alleged  rescue  of 
a  fugitive  slave  at  Oberlin,  was  argued  yester 
day.  Rufus  P.  Spalding  appeared  for  the 
prisoners,  and  the  U.  S.  District- Attorney, 
Mr.  Belden,  of  Canton,  assisted  by  Noah  H. 
Swayne  of  this  city,  for  the  United  States 
Government. 

Mr.  Spalding  opened  the  case,  and  consumed 
the  whole  of  the  forenoon  and  a  large  part  of 
the  afternoon  session  of  the  Court  in  a  matured 
argument 

He  contended  that  Congress  had  no  power 
to  enact  either  the  fugitive  slave  law  of  1793  or 
of  1850,  but  that  if  it  was  conceded  or  decided 
that  the  Federal  Constitution  gave  Congress 
power  to  enact  a  law  for  the  reclamation  of 
fugitives  from  justice,  then  it  transcended  its 
power  in  the  enactment  o^  1850. 

Mr.  Spalding  traced  the  history  of  the  form 
ation  of  the  Constitution,  and  claimed  that  the 
clause  respecting  "  persons  owing  service  "  was 
understood  then,  and  ought  by  any  fair  con 


struction  to  be  understood  now,  not  as  confer 
ring  on  Congress  power  to  enact  fugitive  slave 
laws,  but  simply  as  a  compact  between  the 
States  that  they  would  not  exercise  their 
sovereign  power  to  prevent  the  reclamation  of 
fugitives  from  service. 

He  claimed,  in  view  of  all  the  responsibili 
ties  in  the  case,  Congress  had  no  more  power 
to  enact  a  law  for  the  arrest  and  return 
of  fugitive  slaves  than  for  the  arrest  and 
return  of  a  runaway  horse.  Roger  Sherman, 
asserted  that  doctrine  in  the  convention  which 
formed  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  the 
clause  which,  it  was  claimed,  authorized  the 
law  of  1850,  would  never  have  been  adopted 
in  that  convention,  if  it  had  not  been  the  gene 
ral  belief  South  as  well  as  North,  that  slavery 
was  a  temporary  evil.  The  people  would 
not  have  ratified  the  Constitution  containing 
that  clause,  if  leading  men  had  not  insisted 
upon  it  that  no  difficulty  grew  out  of  the 
clause  in  question,  because  slavery  was  neces 
sarily  a  temporary  institution.  So  strong  was 
the  sentiment  in  the  Constitutional  Convention, 
that  the  phrase  "  legal  service "  was  rejected, 
and  in  its  place  the  words  "  service  under  the 
laws  thereof"  inserted. 

The  argument,  against  the  position  he  urged, 
was  that  it  was  expedient  Congress  should 
legislate  to  reclaim  fugitives  from  service; 
therefore,  it  must  have  the  power  —  necessary 
that  Congress  should  legislate,  because  citizens 
of  the  free  States  abhor  Slavery,  and  are 
unwilling  to  return  fugitives  to  their  chains. 

There  was  no  difficulty  in  reasoning  upon 
almost  any  other  subject  than  this  one  of  negro 
slavery.  It  would  seem  that  men  were  blind 
on  this  infernal  subject,  but  to  him,  it  was  clear 
that  only  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  English 
language  and  ordinary  common  sense  was 
required  to  understand  that  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  Congress  could 
exercise  no  power  imposing  pains  and  penal 
ties  on  citizens  of  the  States  for  doing  what 
was  neither  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  those 
States,  nor  of  the  laws  of  God.  Whatever 
power  there  was  belonged  to  the  States.  They 
had  never  delegated  any  part  of  it  to  Congress. 

He  asked  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio 
should  critically  examine  all  the  questions  in 
volved  in  the  application  now  made  to  it.  Let 
the  whole  responsibility  be  met.  He  planted 
himself,  as  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  on  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  and  there  bid  defiance  to  any 
constructionists.  If  citizens  were  to  be  con 
fined  for  acts  of  benevolence,  let  it  be  done  in 
a  constitutional  manner.  It  was  important  to 
the  people  of  Ohio  that  they  should  know  what 
rule  of  action  was  imperative  upon  them. 
Wisconsin  had  boldly  taken  its  position.  The 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court  had  reversed  the  de 
cision  of  the  Wisconsin  Supreme  Court,  but  the 
Wisconsin  Legislature  had  instructed  the  Court 
to  maintain  its  position.  He  had  no  doubt  of 


•OBEELIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


Ill 


the  final  result.  There  was  a  growing  senti 
ment  that  State  rights  must  be  maintained. 

Mr.  Spalding  read  numerous  speeches  and 
historical  statements  in  support  of  the  positions 
we  have  reported,  and  concluded  by  demand 
ing  that  as  the  U.  S.  District  Court  was  acting 
without  jurisdiction,  the  citizens  in  its  custody 
should  be  discharged. 

Mr.  Spalding  was  responded  to  by  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney,  Mr.  Belden.  At  the  conclusion 
of  his  argument  the  Court  adjourned  till  nine 
o'clock  this  morning,  when  Mr.  Swayne  will 
speak. 

Mr.  Belden  understood  that  there  was  no 
question  before  the  Court  but  the  simple  one  of 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
of  1850.  If  that  law  was  constitutional,  the 
prisoners  were  properly  in  custody. 

Mr.  Spalding  said  he  rested  the  case  on  that 
point,  but  had  designed  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Court  to  the  fact  that  the  Ordinance  of  1 787 
made  a  discrimination  respecting  fugitives  from 
service,  in  one  of  the  original  thirteen  States. 

Mr.  Belden  said  that  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
was  superseded  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  had  no  vitality  but  such  as 
was  given  it  by  acts  of  Congress.  He  would 
not  stop  to  argue  that  point.  He  would  confine 
himself  to  the  question — Will  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio  allow  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in 
favor  of  individuals  held  under  a  law  of  the 
United  States  ?  He  would  present  authorities 
and  argue  that  State  courts  cannot  interfere 
with  Federal  officers,  who  held  persons  in  cus 
tody  under  the  fugitive  slave  law. 

Against  the  position  of  the  counsel  for  the 
prisoners,  were  authorities  of  State  and  Na 
tional  Courts,  of  Legislatures  and  of  Execu 
tives.  He  had  but  one  decision  in  his  favor, 
and  that  was  by  a  divided  Court.  History  was 
against  the  argument  of  the  opposing  counsel  as 
well  as  the  authority  of  Courts.  The  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  was  obligatory  alike 
in  all  the  States,  and  until  modern  agitations 
prevailed,  the  exclusive  right  of  United  States 
Courts  in  cases  under  examination,  was  not 
questioned.  Mr.  Belden  deprecated  earnestly 
a  condition  of  things  in  which  State  Courts 
would  conflict  with  each  other  and  with  the  U. 
S.  Courts  in  expounding  the  federal  constitu 
tion. 

He  held  that  Congress  had  no  power  over 
slavery,  and  no  power  to  enlarge  or  limit  free 
dom —  that  the  Scripture  doctrine  "do  unto 
others  as  you  would  be  done  by,"  did  not  forbid 
slavery  —  that  the  demand  of  the  opponents  of 
the  fugitive  slave  law  for  trial  by  jury  was  pre 
posterous,  and  that  when  men  turned  up  their 
noses  and  declared  the  law  obnoxious,  he  had 
only  to  say  it  is  the  law.  It  is  in  the  Constitu 
tion  —  let  the  laws  be  maintained. 

JThe  argument  of  Mr.  Swayne  will  be  heard 
this  morning  with  much  interest.  We  will  give 
pur  readers  the  points  presented  in  our  next 
issue,  but  may  thereafter  publish  more  in  detail 


the  arguments  of  counsel  on  both  sides  of  this 
important  case. 

THE  APPLICATION  FOR  HABEAS  CORPUS 
ix  THE  RESCUE  CASES.  —  The  argument  be 
fore  the  Supreme  Court  was  concluded  yester 
day  at  noon,  and  the  Court  adjourned  to  Thurs 
day  morning.  Noah  II.  Swayne,  Esq.,  on  the 
part  of  the  U.  S.  Marshal,  occupied  the  fore 
noon  with  an  able,  lawyer-like  argument,  citing 
the  cases  in  which  the  fugitive  slave  law  had 
been  held  to  be  constitutional  by  both  federal 
and  State  Courts,  and  arguing  that  with  so 
many  decisions  in  its  favor,  and  but  one,  the 
recent  decision  of  Wisconsin,  against  its  consti 
tutionality,  the  question  ought  to  be  regarded 
as  settled. 

He  argued  also,  the  question  of  constitution 
ality,  de  novo,  without  regard  to  adjudications, 
and  held  that  the  constitutional  provision,  that 
fugitives  should  be  given  up,  granted  to  Con 
gress  all  the  powers  requisite  to  carry  out  the 
provision.  While  he  claimed  that  the  law  was 
constitutional,  he  did  not  assume  to  defend  the 
policy  of  enacting  so  stringent  a  law,  nor  deny 
that  great  wrongs  might  grow  out  of  it ;  wrongs 
which  would  be  insufferable.  Such  was  not  yet 
the  case,  and  therefore  there  was  no  such  case 
for  this  Court  to  consider.  When  that  emer 
gency  arrived,  the  emergency  itself,  as  was  al 
ways  the  case,  would  beget  the  proper  remedy ; 
the  right  of  revolution  was  the  only  resort  of 
the  people  when  their  wrongs  from  this  law  be 
come  intolerable. 

Judge  Spalding,  for  the  applicants,  occupied 
but  about  fifteen  minutes  in  a  forcible  and  elo 
quent  rejoinder.  He  referred  to  the  importance 
of  the  case  now  before  the  Court,  involving  the 
liberties  of  thirty-seven  citizens  of  Ohio,  while 
all  the  cases  cited  by  the  opposite  counsel  were 
raised  by  the  capture  of  some  fugitive  slave  who 
was  already  far  on  his  return  South  when  the 
question  of  constitutionality  of  the  law  was  ad 
judicated,  and  urged  the  Court  to  give  it  that 
consideration  that  its  consequence  demanded. 

He  argued  with  great  force  that  if  wrongs 
might  grow  out  of  the  execution  of  the  law  that 
would  justify  the  resort  to  the  remedy  of  a  rev 
olution,  it  was  of  the  most  momentous  impor 
tance  that  the  resources  of  the  Courts  should 
be  carefully  investigated,  and  all  legal  remedies 
exhausted,  before  abandoning  the  case  to  so  tej- 
rible  a  remedy  as  revolution. 

He  referred  to  the  standing  of  the  citizens 
now  incarcerated  in  the  jail  of  Cuyahoga  county, 
including  all  classes,  clergymen,  professors  of 
colleges,  doctors,  lawyers,  merchants,  and  others, 
representing  the  best  people  of  the  State ;  that 
this  was  no  case  lightly  to  be  disposed  of  by  our 
prejudice  or  indifference  towards  an  inferior 
race,  but  one  involving  the  liberty  of  a  large 
number  of  the  first  citizens  of  Ohio;  and  allud 
ed  to  the  announcement  in  the  newspapers  that 
the  United  States  war-steamer  Michigan  had 
been  ordered  by  the  President  to  the  port  of 


112 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


Cleveland  to  overawe  the  citizens  with  her 
g^uns,  and  provide  a  prison-ship  for  these  cap 
tives,  beyond  the  reach  of  process  from  the 
State  Courts. 

The  case  has  assumed  a  momentous  impor 
tance.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  law, 
making  a  crime  of  an  act  which  is  an  honor  to 
humanity,  and  which  in  such  circumstances  as 
existed  at  Wellington  can  hardly  be  avoided 
without  debasing  human  sentiment  lower  than 
brute  instincts;  the  odious  and  tyrannical  sever 
ity  of  the  law ;  the  star-chamber  character  of 
the  indictment  and  the  trial ;  the  low  partisan 
ship  of  the  Judge ;  his  coarse  and  indecent  stump 
speech  charge  to  the  Jury ;  the  determination 
of  the  District- Attorney  that  none  but  a  parti 
san  Jury  should  try  the  case ;  the  unmanly  ser 
vility  of  the  United  States  Marshal  to  the 
pleasure  of  a  malignant  President;  packing 
juries  to  indict  and  try;  not  trying  a  man  by  a 
Jury  of  his  peers,  but  by  a  Jury  of  known 
flunkies  ;  his  vanity,  which  leads  him  to  aggra 
vate  the  difficulty  to  magnify  his  own  impor 
tance,  and  which  endangers  a  collision  between 
the  citizens  and  the  Federal  officers  ;  the  offen 
sive  attempt  to  intimidate  the  citizens  by  a  gov 
ernment  war-vessel ;  all  these,  and  many  other 
circumstances  and  considerations  have  combined 
to  excite  an  unprecedented  feeling  among  the 
citizens  of  Northern  Ohio,  and  make  this  ques 
tion  by  far  the  most  important  ever  brought  be 
fore  the  Supreme  Court  of  this,  or  perhaps  any 
other  State.  Grave  consequences  hang  on  their 
decision.  We  are  confident  that  the  question 
will  receive  that  consideration  which  its  impor 
tance  demands ;  that  it  will  be  decided  strictly 
on  legal  principles,  and  that  the  Court  will 
shrink  from  no  responsibility  which  duty  in 
volves. 

The  Court  took  the  case  under  advisement, 
and  on  Thursday,  the  28th,  rendered  the  fol 
lowing  decision :  — 

SUPREME  COURT  OF  Oino. 

Hon.  Joseph  R.  Swan,  Chief  Justice,  and  Hon. 
Jacob  Brinkerhojf,  Hon.  Josiah  Scott,  lion. 
Milton  Sutliffj  and  Hon.  William  V.  Peck, 
Judges.  L.  J.  CritcJifield,  Reporter. 

TUESDAY,  April  23,  1859. 

In  the  matter  of  the  applications  of  Simeon 
Bushnell,  Charles  Langston,  and  others,  for  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

PECK,  J.  It  appears  from  the  petitions  filed 
in  these  cases,  that  all  of  the  relators  who  ask 
for  the  allowance  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
are  now  in  the  custody  of  the  United  States 
Marshal  for  the  Northern  District  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  ;  that  they  are  thus  in  his  custody  un 
der  and  by  virtue  of  a  mittimus  regularly  issued 
by  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  on  indictments 
preferred  against  them  in  said  District  Court, 


for  an  alleged  violation  of  a  law  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  respecting  fugitives  from 
service,  passed  September  18,  1850;  that  the 
relators  are  charged  in  said  indictments  with 
the  rescue,  and  the  aiding  and  abetting  in  the 
rescue  of  a  fugitive  from  service  ;  and  that  the 
proceedings  under  said  indictments  are  still 
pending  and  undetermined  before  said  District 
Court. 

The  separate  application  of  Simeon  Bushnell, 
indeed,  shows  that  he  has  been  tried  upon  said 
indictment  and  found  guilty,  and  is  now  in  cus 
tody,  awaiting  the  final  judgment  and  sentence 
of  the  Court.  That  on  being  arraigned  upon 
said  indictment  before  said  District  Court,  he, 
by  his  counsel,  moved  the  Court  to  quash  the 
same  for  various  reasons,  one  of  which  was, 
that  the  law  of  1850,  upon  which  it  was  based, 
is  unconstitutional  and  void ;  which  motion  the 
District  Court  refused  to  grant.  A  motion  to 
quash  addresses  itself  to  the  sound  discretion  of 
a  Court,  and  is  never  granted,  except  in  very 
clear  cases,  but  the  defendant  is  left  to  raise 
the  question  in  a  more  formal  way,  by  demur 
rer  or  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment.  The  re 
fusal  to  grant  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  Jinal 
decision  of  the  question  raised  by  the  motion, 
when  the  point  is  one  which,  if  well  taken, 
would  be  available  on  demurrer  or  in  arrest  oi 
judgment;  indeed,  such  motion  should  never 
be  granted,  if  the  question  is,  in  any  degree, 
doubtful,  but  should  be  reserved  for  hearing  on 
motion  to  arrest  the  judgment.  No  judgment 
or  sentence  having  been  pronounced,  and  the 
question  of  jurisdiction  being  still  an  open  one 
before  that  Court,  we  do  not  think  the  case  of 
Simeon  Bushnell,  as  to  the  question  of  jurisdic 
tion,  distinguishable,  in  principle,  from  that  of 
the  other  relators. 

Is  it  then  legally  competent  for  this  Court, 
to  withdraw  the  relators  from  the  District 
Court,  in  the  custody  of  which  they  now  are, 
charged  with  the  violation  of  an  Act  of  Con 
gress,  while  the  proceedings  against  them  are 
still  pending  and  undetermined,  and  discharge 
them  on  the  ground  that  the  Act  of  Congress 
upon  which  the  indictment  is  based,  is  uncon 
stitutional  and  void  ? 

The  District  Court  now  has  possession  of  the 
case  and  the  parties  to  it,  and  has  the  legal 
power  and  capacity  to  hear  and  determine  Tor 
itself,  the  question  of  its  own  jurisdiction  and 
right  to  act  in  the  premises.  The  legal  pre 
sumption  in  such  cases  always  is,  that  a  Court 
thus  assuming  to  act,  will  determine  the  ques 
tion  of  its  own  jurisdiction  correctly,  until  it 
has  acted  finally  upon  it. 

Hence  it  is  a  rule  founded  upon  the  comity 
which  does,  and  for  the  prevention  of  unpleas 
ant  collision,  should  always  subsist  between  ju 
dicial  tribunals,  that,  where  a  court  of  general 
jurisdiction  and  legally  competent  to  determine 
its  own  jurisdiction,  has  acquired  prior  jurisdic 
tion  de  facto  over  person  or  subject-matter,  no 
other  Court  will  interfere  with  or  seek  to  avert 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


113 


its  action,  while  the  case  is  still  pending  and 
undetermined.  This  rule  is  sustained  and  sup 
ported  by  all  the  analogies  of  the  law.  See 
Smith  v.  Iver,  9  Wheaton,  532;  Hagan  v.  Lu 
cas,  10  Peters,  400;  Taylor  v.  Carryl,  20  How. 
594 ;  United  States  v.  Morris,  2  Am.  L.  R.,  351 ; 
Exparte  Robinson,  6  McLean,  3G3  ;  Keating  v. 
Spmk,  2  Ohio  State  R.,  105.  Kurd  on  Habeas 
Corpus,  199,  et  scq. 

It  is  right  in  principle,  and  preventive  of 
unpleasant  collision  between  different  tribu 
nals.  If  another  tribunal  were  thus  to  inter 
fere  with  our  action  and  withdraw  from  our  cus 
tody  a  prisoner  upon  trial  before  us,  and  set 
him  at  large,  we  should  resist  such  attempt  to 
the  uttermost.  And  shall  we  not  extend  to 
other  tribunals  the  comity  and  the  same  confi 
dence  that  we  claim  for  ourselves  ? 

In  the  recent  cases  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
and  which  have  attracted  so  much  attention 
and  remark,  this  point  was  expressly  decided, 
and  that,  too,  by  the  same  Court  which  deter 
mined  the  fugitive  slave  law  to  be  unconstitu 
tional.  Exparte,  Boothe,(3  Wis.  Rep.  155. 

The  history  of  this  case  is  as  follows :  — 

Boothe  had  been  arrested  on  warrants  grant 
ed  by  a  United  States  Commissioner,  for  aiding 
in  the  escape  of  a  fugitive  slave  from  service 
contrary  to  the  law  of  1850.  One  of  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  upon  habeas 
corpus,  discharged  Boothe  from  the  custody  of 
the  marshal,  on  the  ground,  that  the  law  of 
1850  as  to  fugitive  slaves,  was  unconstitutional, 
among  other  things,  in  authorizing  Commission 
ers  so  to  act  and  issue  warrants,  and  that  a  war 
rant  issued  by  such  officer  was  illegal  and  void, 
and  a  majority  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  that 
State  on  certiorari,  affirmed  the  judgment. 
Boothe  was  subsequently  indicted  in  the  Dis 
trict  Court  of  the  U.  S.  for  the  State  of  Wiscon 
sin,  for  the  same  offence,  and  arrested  by  the 
marshal  on  a  warrant  issued  thereon.  Boothe 
thereupon  applied  to  the  same  Supreme  Court 
then  in  session,  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  be 
delivered  from  the  custody  of  the  marshal ;  but 
the  writ  was  unanimously  refused,  on  the  ground 
that  it  appeared  from  the  application,  that  he 
was  under  arrest  upon  indictment  of  a  Court 
having  jurisdiction  of  alleged  offences  against 
the  United  States,  and  that  the  case  was  still 
pending  and  undetermined.  That  Court  de 
cided  that  they  had  no  legal  ri^ht  to  interfere 
in  his  behalf  while  the  prosecution  was  pend 
ing,  even  though  the  law  of  Congress  under 
which  he  was  indicted,  was  unconstitutional 
and  void ;  recognizing,  in  its  fullest  extent,  the 
principle  and  practice  of  judicial  Courts  to 
which  I  have  adverted.  They  concede  the 
privilege  and  right  of  the  District  Court  to  de 
termine  first  and  for  itself,  the  question  of  its 
own  jurisdiction,  and  in  reply  to  the  claim,  that 
the  law  was  unconstitutional  and  void,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  District  Court  could  not  have 
any  jurisdiction,  very  aptly  remarks,  that  that 
feet,  if  true,  amounts,  after  all,  to  a  question  of 

15 


jurisdiction  which  they,  in  the  first  instance, 
must  decide  for  themselves.  Subsequently,  the 
prosecution  having  terminated  by  a  conviction 
and  sentence  of  imprisonment,  the  same  Court 
allowed  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  discharged 
Boothe  for  alleged  defects  in  the  indictment, 
which  did  not  brin<*  the  counts  upon  which  he 
was  convicted  within  the  purview  of  the  act  of 
Congress  of  September  18,  1850. 

We  refer  to  these  cases  in  Wisconsin  with  no 
design  of  expressing  our  assent  or  dissent  to 
the  decisions  under  the  first  and  last  writs  of 
habeas  corpus  ;  but  merely  to  show  that  a  Court 
which  had  judicially  decided  the  law  to  be  un 
constitutional,  still  held  that  in  a  case  like  that 
under  consideration,  they  had  no  legal  right  or 
authority  to  interfere.  « 

On  the  whole,  we  are  unanimously  of  the 
opinion  that  the  relators,  upon  their  own  show 
ing,  admitting  the  law  in  question  to  be  uncon 
stitutional  and  void,  could  not  be  discharged  by 
us,  if  the  writ  had  been  issued,  and  they  were 
now  before  us  for  deliverance.  It  would  be  an 
idle  and  expensive  ceremony  to  award  the  writ 
to  bring  the  parties  here,  and  for  the  time,  in 
tercept  the  proceedings  in  said  District  Court, 
when  our  next  duty  would  be  to  remand  them 
into  the  custody  of  the  officer  who  now  holds 
them. 

The  application  for  writs  of  Jiabeas  corpus 
in  behalf  of  the  relators,  is,  for  the  reasons 
stated,  refused. 

This  view  of  the  case  renders  an  examina 
tion  of  the  other  propositions  mooted  in  the  ar 
gument,  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act  of 
Congress  adverted  to,  and  the  right  of  the  State 
tribunals  to  interfere  with  the  final  action  of  the 
District  Courts  in  that  behalf,  altogether  un 
necessary. 

Swan,  C.  J.,  and  Brinkerhoff,  Scott,  and 
Sutliff,  JJ.,  concurred  in  the  foregoing  opin 
ion. 

We  return  again  to  the  U.  S.  Court. 

SIXTH  DAY. — (MONDAY)  MORNIXG  SESSION. 

On  the  coming  in  of  Court,  it  was  stated  by 
Judge  BLISS,  associate  Counsel  for  the  Govern 
ment,  that  District- Attorney  Belden  was  in  at 
tendance  upon  the  Supreme  Court  at  Columbus, 
where  was  to-day  to  be  argued  the  motion  for  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Thereupon  the  Court 
said  a  postponement  of  the  case  would  be  grant 
ed  until  Wednesday  morning,  the  27th  inst,  at 
9  o'clock. 

The  Government  then  asked  the  Court  to 
nolle  the  indictments  found  against  Oliver  S.  B. 
Wall,  and  against  James  R.  Shepard,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Grand  Jury  had  seriously  mis 
spelled  the  defendants'  names.  The  nolle  was 
entered  on  each  indictment,  and  the  defendants 
ordered  to  be  released  from  jail. 


114 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


It  is  but  proper  .to  remark  here  that  the 
Marshal  notified  the  Court,  not  only  in  the  in 
dorsement  upon  his  warrant,  but  orally,  and 
with  explicit  emphasis,  upon  the  first  appear 
ance  of  the  defendants,  that  these  errors  in  the 
indictments  were  so  serious  as  to  be  undoubted 
ly  fatal ;  and  farther,  the  counsel  for  the  de 
fence  at  once  entered  pleas  of  abatement  for 
this  cause.  The  defendants  were,  nevertheless, 
obliged  to  enter  into  recognizances  for  appear 
ance  and  trial,  and  in  all  other  respects  put  to 
the  same  inconvenience  and  expense,  and  treat 
ed  in  the  same  manner  as  their  differently  cir 
cumstanced  associates.  When  the  causeless 
order  to  prison  was  given,  the  attention  of  the 
District- Attorney  was  again  called  to  these  mis 
nomers,  to  which  the  prompt  and  emphatic, 
if  not  so  elegant,  response  was  —  "  Go 
'long!" 

Eleven  days  afterward,  no  farther  or  other 
notice  having  been  served  by  the  defendants, 
but  when  it  was  expected  on  the  one  side  and 
feared  on  the  other,  that  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  State  were  about  to  make  an  official  inves 
tigation  of  the  cases,  a  telegram  came  from  Co 
lumbus  to  Judge  BLISS,  ordering  the  speedy 
discharge  of  the  misnomered  prisoners. 

The  Court  met  on  Wednesday,  the  27th, 
pursuant  to  adjournment.  The  counsel  for  the 
relators  at  Columbus  having  returned,  every 
thing  was  ready  for  the  continuance  of  the 
trial,  until  Judge  BLISS  informed  the  Court 
that  the  District- Attorney  had  not  yet  returned, 
and  the  Government  found  it  therefore  neces 
sary  to  ask  a  farther  adjournment  ;  which  was 
granted,  and  the  Court  took  recess  for  twenty- 
four  hours. 

On  Thursday  morning,  Judge  BLISS  pre 
sented  a  letter  from  District- Attorney  Belden, 
asking  a  continuance  of  the  case  until  the  fol 
lowing  Monday.  No  reason  was  assigned  to  the 
Court  for  so  extraordinary  a  request ;  but  as 
Mr,  Belden  spent  the  balance  of  the  week  in 
the ''bosom  of  his  family  at  Canton,  he  doubtless 
desired  a  respite  from  his  arduous  official  du 
ties  for  .social  recreation  and  domestic  enjoy 
ment. 

On  Monday,  May  2,  the  Government  asking 
no  farther  postponement,  the  trial  proceeded. 

NINTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 
.Judge  SPALDJNG  asked  that  Bushnell's  sen 


tence  might  be  pronounced  at  the  earliest  con 
venience  of  the  Court. 

The  COURT  replied,  that  the  matter  would 
be  taken  into  consideration,  and  that  the  time 
he  had  been  in  jail  since  his  conviction  would 
be  taken  into  account. 

George  B.  Barber.  Live  at  Wellington.  Did 
Sept.  13,  1858.  Was  at  home  on  that  day. 
Not  far  from  two  o'clock  the  crowd  first  com 
menced  to  assemble  at  the  Hotel.  I  heard 
about  this  time,  that  there  was  a  fugitive  then 
in  the  hands  of  the  Southerners.  Some  wanted 
to  buy  him.  Some  one  said  they  brought  him 
from  Oberlin.  Watson  then  came  up  the  steps 
to  the  door  of  the  Hotel.  Saw  defendant 
there,  between  three  and  four,  p.  M.,  in  the 
lane.  He  was  going  up  stairs,  or  going  into 
the  house.  There  were  a  good  many  in  the 
passage.  Some  standing  and  looking  on,  some 
passing  back  and  forwards.  When  I  first  saw 
defendant  he  was  ten  feet  from  back  porch. 
Think  he  was  handing  a  gun  to  another  man 
near  there,  a  man  from  Oberlin,  when  I  first 
saw  him.  May  be  mistaken  about  his  having 
a  gun.  He  had  his  hand  on  a  gun  and  another 
man  had  hold  of  it  too.  He  may  simply  have 
put  his  hand  on  the  other  man's  gun.  Defend 
ant  then  passed  on  to  the  porch  towards  the 
door.  It  may  have  been  an  hour  from  the  time 
Watson  came  up,  to  this  time.  Saw  defendant 
again  in  the  passage-way.  He  then  came  out 
of  the  house,  and  another  man  with  him,  say 
half  an  hour  after  the  first.  The  man  with 
him  as  he  came  out  wore  a  broad-brimmed  hat. 
Heard  that  his  name  was  Patton.  The  other 
man  said  he  had  seen  the  papers  and  believed 
they  were  legal.  This  was  said  in  defendant's 
hearing,  I  think.  He  was  very  near.  This 
man  said  he  "  believed  the  papers  were  all 
correct.  That  the  only  legal  course  now  was 
to  send  to  Elyria  for  a  habeas  corpus  to  take 
John."  But  he  said  he  "  understood  they  had 
sent  to  Cleveland  for  the  military  —  for  the 
Cleveland  Grays ;  and  now  it  is  in  your  own 
hands."  He  said  "  it  would  take  some  time  to 
go  there  and  back,  and  it  would  then  be  too 
late."  He  then  went  out  in  front  and  addressed 
the  crowd.  Defendant  was  either  ten  or  fifteen 
feet  from  this  man.  Thought  he  was  talking 
with  the  crowd.  Heard  him  say  to  them  that 
they  had  better  pursue  a  legal  course  if  they 
could.  Think  this  man  was  not  so  full  in  the 
face  as  Patton,  but  he  might  have  been.  De 
fendant  was  at  this  time  twenty  or  thirty  feet 
from  the  door.  This  I  think  was  an  hour  and 
it  may  have  been  more  before  the  Rescue. 
There  was  a  good  deal  said  by  the  crowd. 
Some  said  that  he  should  never  be  taken  back 
South  —  that  they  would  tear  the  house  down 
—  that  the  "  Hook  and  Ladder  Company "  of 
Oberlin  were  on  the  way  there  to  pull  down 
the  house.  A  good  deal  of  excitement.  Saw 
John  first  through  the  window  in  the  Bar  Room. 
Saw  a  paper  in  De  Wolf's  hand.  Don't  know 
what  it  was. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


115 


William  Sciples.  Live  at  Wellington.  Was 
there  at  the  time  of  the  Rescue.  Saw  defend 
ant  there  then.  Saw  him  round  at  the  back 
door  in  the  first  place.  About  two  o'clock,  or 
between  two  and  three,  cannot  tell  the  exact 
time.  It  was  after  we  came  from  the  Court  at 
the  Town  Hall.  This  was  not  late  in  the  after 
noon.  Saw  defendant  and  several  others. 
Cannot  tell  whom.  I  did  not  see  defendant 
doing  any  thing  out  there.  Saw  as  many  as  a 
half  dozen  'round  there  then.  They  were 
marching  back  and  forwards.  He  was  then  in 
the  crowd.  Next  saw  him  pretty  well  towards 
night  on  the  second  floor,  up  one  flight  of  stairs, 
in  the  hall.  Watson,  and  two  or  three  colored 
men  were  there,  and  some  white  men,  five  or 
six  in  all.  One  or  two  of  the  men  with 
defendant  had  arms.  I  started  to  go  down 
stairs. 

NINTH  DAY. — AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
Saw  these  men  in  the  hall.  They  were  talk 
ing  about  going  to  Elyria  after  a  Writ.  Some 
said  they  had  sent  to  Cleveland  for  aid  —  for  a 
force  —  that  if  the  aid  got  there  before  they  got 
him  they  would  lose  him.  Defendant  said  "  we 
will  have  him  at  any  rate  before  he  shall  go 
South."  There  was  considerable  said,  but  I 
went  right  along.  This  was  about  half  an  hour 
before  the  Rescue.  These  were  mixed  men  ; 
three  or  four  colored.  I  had  been  in  the  room 
where  the  negro  was  kept  quite  a  while  before 
this.  Mr.  Lowe  had  called  on  me  for  assist 
ance.  Cannot  tell  when  it  was  he  called  on 
me  for  assistance,  but  it  was  right  after  we 
came  from  the  Lawsuit.  I  went  to  the  room 
by  order  of  Meacham,  the  constable.  He  said 
he  had  a  warrant  for  Jennings,  Lo!we,  and 
Mitchell.  One  of  the  justices  of  Wellington 
had  issued  it.  Don't  know  what  he  was  going 
to  arrest  him  for.  Soules  and  Maude ville  were 
with  me.  Meacham  told  them  he  earne  to 
arrest  them.  Lowe  told  him  he  had  no  right 
to  arrest  them,  as  Jennings  had  the  power 
of  attorney  that  they  had  arrested  the  slave 
on,  and  that  they  were  acting  on.  Jennings 
showed  the  power  of  attorney.  I  saw  it.  We 
then  read  it  to  all  that  were  in  the  room.  Lowe 
said  he  was  acting  as  an  agent,  that  he  had  a 
warrant  —  that  he  was  a  marshal ;  cannot  say 
that  Meacham  examined  the  power  of  attorney. 
Jennings  said  it  was  a  power  of  attorney,  and 
they  might  read  it.  Soules  and  Mandeville 
were  there.  But  Mandeville  was  in  liquor, 
and  I  don't  think  he  knew  much  about  what 
was  done  there  that  day.  I  was  there  in  the 
room  all  the  afternoon,  except  once  when  I  went 
for  Watson,  and  twice  when  I  went  down  to 
get  people  to  examine  papers.  I  went  for 
Dickson.  Did  not  find  him.  Then  went  down 
again  for  Squire  Howk.  Told  him  that  Mar 
shal  Lowe  wanted  to  see  him.  While  I  was  in 
the  room  that  afternoon,  I  should  think  twenty 
persons  from  the  crowd  went  into  that  room. 
Might  have  been  twelve  or  fifteen  of  these  that 


talked  about  the  slave.  Mr.  Jennings  spoke  to 
some  one  in  the  room,  and  told  him  he  had 
better  go  out  to  the  crowd  and  tell  them  that 
any  of  them  could  come  up  and  see  the  papers. 
I  was  there  when  John  made  the  speech  to  the 
crowd — just  came  up  as  he  went  out.  I  got 
out  doors.  He  came  out  and  commenced  talk 
ing  about  going  back.  Said  he  would  rather 
go  back  than  have  any  fuss.  Heard  nothing 
about  papers.  Heard  conversation  in  the  room. 
There  were  in  the  room  then,  Doland,  Doctor 
Wadsworth,  W.  Soules,  J.  Wheeler,  Mr.  Jen 
nings,  Lowe,  Davis,  Mitchell,  and,  I  think,  Bar 
ber.  I  sat  down  on  the  side  of  the  bed.  John 
said  he  was  a  slave ;  belonged  in  Kentucky ; 
Bacon  was  his  master ;  and  he  knew  Jennings. 
Don't  remember  that  he  said  any  thing  else. 
This  was  before  I  met  Langston  in  the  passage. 
There  were  two  or  three  talking  about  getting 
the  Writ  at  Elyria,  and  thought  there  would 
not  be  time,  etc.  Langston  said,  "  we  will 
have  him  any  way  before  they  come  from 
Cleveland, —  before  he  shall  go  South."  (He 
used  both  the  phrases.)  I  had  gone  to  get 
water  when  John  was  rescued.  I  did  not  get 
it.  Crowd  at  back  door  knocked  down  a  man. 
Jake  Wheeler  threw  his  coat  off  and  we  would 
not  let  them  go  up  stairs.  I  did  not  see  the 
gun  taken.  It  was  not  over  three  minutes 
after  this  before  the  negro  came  down.  Ten 
or  twelve  rushed  up  at  the  first  rush. 

James  Bonney.  Was  at  Wellington  at  work 
at  the  Hotel  on  the  13th  of  last  September. 
Saw*lefendant  at  4  o'clock,  p.  M.  He  was  in 
the  hall  up  the  first  flight  of  stairs.  Cummins 
was  with  him.  No  one  else  was  with  him. 
Cummins  told  me  if  I  would  get  the  key  of  the 
front  door  of  the  hall  for  this  man  (turning  to 
defendant),  he  would  give  me  five  dollars. 
The  door  was  locked.  I  told  him  I  would  not 
sell  myself  for  five  dollars.  Nothing  more  was 
said.  I  was  coming  in  from  the  barn. 

R.  E.  Thayer.  AVas  at  Wellington  Septem 
ber  13,  1858.  Lived  there.  Was  at  the  Hotel 
about  three  or  half  past  three  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon.  The  crowd  were  trying  to  get  a 
colored  man  out  of  the  hotel,  iteard  first  that 
those  who  had  him  had  no  papers.  Then 
heard  they  had.  Should  think  there  were 
about  fifty  guns  in  the  crowd.  Saw  some 
pointed  towards  the  house,  and  one  towards 
me.  I  sent  a  man  into  the  house  to  the  Con 
stable  to  see  what  the  Constable's  fees  were  in 
a  certain  case.  The  young  man  went  up  the 
ladder.  I  pulled  him  back.  Another  neg~o 
snapped  his  gun  at  me.  I  got  the  negro  by  the 
head,  etc.  Next  I  knew  I  was  being  carried 
on  some  men's  shoulders.  I  then  started  to  go 
to  the  back  yard.  Saw  De  Wolfe  on  the  front 
steps.  Some  one  by  his  side  ;  600  or  700  in 
front  of  him.  He  had  a  paper  in  his  hands, 
and  said  they  had  got  a  human  being  up  there 
and  we  must  get  him.  Heard  it  said  that  they 
i  had  a  paper  to  indemnify  the  Constable  for 
taking  the  men.  Did  not  hear  him  say  any 


116 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


thing  about  the  paper.  The  crowd  said  they 
could  not  get  the  slave.  The  Constable  would 
not  serve  the  papers  on  the  Southern  men, 
unless  he  was  indemnified.  This  was  what  the 
crowd  said  the  paper  was  for.  I  was  not  there 
when  John  was  taken  away. 

N.  H.  Reynolds.  Was  at  Wellington  on 
September  13,  1858.  Live  there.  Was  up  at 
the  hotel  the  most  part  of  the  day.  Got  up 
before  breakfast.  The  shop  was  on  fire  that  I 
then  worked  in.  Was  there  all  day,  in  front 
and  around  the  hotel.  Saw  Mr.  Fay  there. 
He  and  I  stood  in  the  back  door,  between  3 
and  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  I  was  tending 
the  door.  Had  orders  to  keep  the  crowd  out. 
Cannot  state  at  what  time  Fay  left,  but  he  was 
driven  away  about  half  an  hour  before  the 
rescue.  He  was  borne  back  by  the  crowd,  as 
was  I.  The  crowd  of  black  men  said  they 
would  go  in,  law  or  no  law.  Saw  defendant 
before  this  in  the  alley.  He  said  they  would 
have  John.  Did  not  exactly  say  John,  but 
meant  him.  Said  he  wanted  the  man,  or,  he 
would  have  the  man,  law  or  no  law.  His  lan 
guage  was,  "  we  will  have  the  man,  law  or  no 
law."  Saw  a  number  of  guns  that  day.  This 
was  about  twenty  minutes  before  I  took  my 
stand  at  the  door  with  Fay.  Saw  defendant 
after  that  at  the  door.  Did  not  see  him  do,  or 
hear  him  .say,  any  thing.  Saw  him  last  in  the 
hall  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs.  He  apparently 
came  in  with  the  rush.  He  was  fourteen  or 
fifteen  feet  from  the  back  door  through  which 
the  crowd  rushed  in.  There  were  a  numBer  of 
people  with  him,  those  who  rushed  in.  Think 
their  aim  was  to  go  up  stairs.  Did  not  observe 
them  closely.  Am  troubled  with  cowardice. 
Think  I  heard  Langston  say  something  about 
the  train  coming  from  Cleveland,  that  they 
had  got  to  have  him  before  the  train  came  in, 
or  they  would  not  succeed  in  getting  him. 
This  was  a  little  after  the  other  conversation. 

Cross-examined.  Am  a  shoemaker.  Had 
kept  the  door  twenty  minutes  when  the  rush 
was  made.  It  was  about  fifteen  minutes  after 
the  rush  that  John  was  taken  out.  His  lan 
guage  was,  "  we  will  have  him  regardless  of  the 
law."  What  he  said  when  I  heard  him  the 
second  time  on  the  porch,  was  about  the  same ; 
he  said,  "  Yes,  we  will  go  in."  I  stated  to 
Judge  Bliss  that  he  said  what  I  have  told  you 
he  said.  There  was  something  said  about  the 
train ;  that  they  must  have  him  before  the  train 
came  in,  or  they  would  get  him  away.  Train 
was  to  come  in  at  5,  p.  M. 

Jacob  K.  Lowe.  Live  at  Columbus.  Am 
United  States  Deputy  Marshal.  Was  at  Wel 
lington  at  the  time  of  the  rescue,  and  at  Ober- 
lin  shortly  previous.  Went  there  under  the 
procurement  of  Anderson  Jennings.  First 
saw  him  at  Columbus.  There  he  secured  my 
services.  This  was  three  or  four  days  before 
the  rescue  — four  days.  I  went  with  him  to 
Oberlin.  Davis  was  with  us.  No  one  else. 
Don't  know  that  there  was  any  agreed  price 


for  my  compensation  with  Jennings,  but  calcu 
lated  I  was  to  have  two  dollars  a  day.  Arrived 
on  Friday  evening  between  sundown  and  dark. 
Found  Mitchell  there,  standing  on  the  porch 
of  Wack's  hotel,  when  we  drove  up.  Re 
mained  there  that  night.  Went  there  to  get 
John.  We  staid  there  until  Saturday  evening. 
Could  n't  arrange  to  get  him.  Went  to  Boyn- 
ton's  Saturday  evening.  Jennings  made  the 
arrangement  with  Boynton's  son,  to  have  John 
come  there  to  work.  Got  the  negro  in  pursu 
ance  of  that  arrangement.  Got  him  two  and  a 
half  miles  from  Oberlin.  Davis  and  Mitchell 
with  me.  This  was  about  12  o'clock,  at  noon. 
Took  him  to  Wellington.  Arrived  at  Welling 
ton  between  1  and  2  o'clock.  Left  Jennings  at 
Wack's.  Had  n't  paid  our  bills. 

TENTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 

Cannot  tell  at  what  time  Jennings  arrived  at 
Wellington.  Might  have  been  3,  p.  M.,  or  a 
little  after.  We  were  in  a  room  in  the  second 
story.  Jennings  appeared  dissatisfied  with  the 
room.  There  was  a  crowd  outside,  and  some 
excitement.  Jennings  said  we  must  get  a  bet 
ter  room  than  that.  He  got  another  room  in 
the  attic.  We  went  up  there  pretty  soon. 
We  remained  there  until  the  negro  got  away. 
I  told  Jennings,  as  soon  as  he  came  in,  that  I 
wanted  him  to  take  charge  of  the  negro.  I 
supposed  that  I  had  arrested  the  negro  under 
the  warrant.  Was  aware  of  the  law  making 
me  liable  for  a  rescue,  and  did  not  want  him  on 
my  hands.  I  told  Jennings  I  wanted  him  to 
take  charge  of  the  negro.  He  said  he  supposed 
he  had  charge  of  him  all  the  time.  He  did 
take  charge  of  him  then  in  that  room,  and  con 
trolled  things  afterwards.  Did  so  until  the 
Rescue.  I  could  not  hear  what  was  said  by  the 
crowd  outside,  when  Jennings  arrived.  A  good 
many  there  had  guns.  The  only  bugsy  I  saw 
there  from  Oberlin  was  W'atson's.  Saw  him 
just  in  the  act  of  getting  out  of  the  buggy. 

A  good  many  came  into  the  room  where  the 
negro  was.  They  examined  the  papers  we  had. 
We  showed  all  the  papers  we  had,  to  most  of 
those  who  came  in.  Cannot  say  they  were 
shown  to  all.  Those  who  came  in  were  at  lib 
erty  to  talk  to  the  negro.  Recollect  Patton, 
defendant,  —  have  known  him  two  or  three 
years ;  knew  him  in  Columbus,  —  Mr.  Meach- 
am,  the  constable,  and  the  justice  of  the  peace 
who  issued  the  warrant  for  us.  Think  the  pa 
pers  were  all  shown  to  Bennett  and  to  Patton. 
Don't  know  whether  the  papers  were  all  shown 
to  defendant.  I  told  him  that  the  negro  was 
a  fugitive,  —  was  the  one  named,  —  that  Jen 
nings  had  a  power  of  attorney,  and  I  had  a 
warrant,  and  that  I  had  arrested  him,  or  assis 
ted  in  arresting  him.  Think  I  explained  to 
him  who  the  owner  was,  and  where  the  negro 
was  from.  I  had  sent  for  defendant  to  come 
up.  Had  known  him  in  Columbus.  I  explain 
ed  the  thing  to  him  until  he  said  he  was  satis 
fied.  I  sent  for  him.  I  told  him  that  I  would 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


117 


like  to  have  him  go  down  and  explain  to  the  j 
crowd  how  things  were.     He  expressed  himself ' 
satisfied  that  the  negro  was  legally  held,  and 
said  he  would  go  down  and  tell  the  people  so. 

While  defendant  and  I  were  talking,  the  train 
passed  by.  I  heard  the  train.  Did  not  see  it. 
This  conversation  was  after  we  had  gone  up 
into  the  attic.  Cannot  say  that  defendant  was 
up  there  more  than  twice.  This  was  the  first 
time.  He  went  down  and  was  gone  some  twen 
ty  minutes.  He  called  me  out  of  the  room,  to 
a  little  room.  He  said  he  had  been  down  talk 
ing  with  the  people  below,  and  he  could  do 
nothing  with  them.  Said  they  were  deter 
mined,  he  believed,  on  having  the  boy.  He 
asked  me  if  I  could  get  Jennings  to  give  him 
up  without  any  trouble.  I  remarked  to  him 
that  there  was  no  use  to  talk  to  them  about  that, 
for  we  were  determined  to  keep  him  if  we 
could.  He  said  he  did  not  like  to  see  any 
trouble  there.  Would  prefer  to  have  it  pass  off 
quietly.  There  had  been  a  proposition  made 
before  that,  by  one  of  us,  or  by  some  one,  I 
don't  know  who,  to  Patton,  to  have  a  committee 
go  to  Columbus  and  see  that  John  had  a  fair 
trial,  and  that  if  he  was  not  held  legally,  he 
of  course  would  be  delivered  up.  He  also 
talked  of  this  plan,  and  he  was  very  anxious  to 
have  that  carried  out.  But  the  people  below 
would  not  agree  to  it,  or  hear  to  it.  We  were 
sitting  on  the  bed  then.  He  got  up,  and  just  as 
he  was  about  to  go  down  stairs  he  said,  "  we 
will  have  him  any  how."  He  intimated  no  dan 
ger  to  me.  Said  some  of  us  might  get  hurt,  and 
that  he  was  anxious  to  have  it  so  disposed  of  as 
to  avoid  it.  This  conversation  was  about  an 
hour  and  a  half  before  the  Rescue.  Did  not 
see  defendant  after  this.  I  was  in  the  room  all 
the  time  after  this.  I  went  down  to  show  the 
papers  to  the  crowd.  Patton  and  Meacham  re 
quested  it,  saying  that  they  thought  the  crowd 
•would  be  satisfied  and  leave.  I  told  Jennings 
he  had  better  go  down.  He  said,  "  you  don't 
Tcttch  me  down  in  that  crowd."  I  took  down 
the  power  of  attorney  and  warrant.  Patton 
and  Meacham  went  down  and  around  with  me. 
We  went  to  the  steps  south  of  the  hotel.  Pat- 
ton  said  he  would  read  the  papers  if  they  would 
keep  silence  and  listen.  He  read  all  of  one 
and  part  of  the  other.  Don't  know  which  one. 
There  was  a  man  at  the  back  part  of  the  house. 
I  took  the  paper  out  of  his  hand  and  went  to 
the  house  as  fast  as  I  could.  It  was  probably 
ten  minutes  from  this  time,  to  that  of  the  Res 
cue.  I  was  out  ten  or  fifteen  minutes.  I  left 
in  the  room,  I  cannot  tell  whom.  Saw  a  man 
there  whom  I  have  since  found  to  be  Scrimgeour. 
The  attempt  to  lead  the  negro  out  was  not  in 
my  presence.  Don't  remember  that  I  said  any 
thing  to  Patton  as  I  took  the  paper  from  him. 
Not  more  than  one-third  of  the  crowd  was  in 
hearing  of  his  voice.  I  think  very  little  was 
said  by  the  crowd.  They  kept  quiet  while  the 
first  paper  was  being  read.  As  he  commenced 
reading  the  second  paper,  some  two  or  three 


said  it  made  no  difference  about  papers,  they 
made  their  own  laws  in  regard  to  such  things, 
or  something  to  that  effect.  When  John  was 
taken  out  to  the  platform  he  commenced  saying 
that  he  had  been  sent  for,  and  was  going  home, 
but  he  did  not  finish  it.  The  crowd  told  him 
not  to  say  any  such  thing.  Some  two  or  three 
had  been  in  and  suggested  that  if  he  would 
go  out  and  state  to  the  crowd,  what  he  had 
said  to  them,  they  would  be  satisfied.  I  had 
conversed  with  defendant  pretty  freely.  He 
had  been  to  the  crowd  and  talked  to  them, 
come  back  and  told  me  that  he  could  do  nothing 
with  them.  Wanted  us  to  give  him  up.  Know 
that  defendant  said  in  the  second  conversation 
that  "  we  will  have  him  any  how,"  because  he 
had  talked  with  me  as  if  he  was  anxious  for 
peace.  He  spoke  as  if  he  meant  what  he  said. 
I  was  disappointed  when  he  said  so. 

Cross-examined.  Was  Deputy  U.  S.  Marshal. 
Had  known  Jennings.  Knew  him,  say  about 
two  weeks  before.  Jennings  was  then  after 
another  negro.  Don't  know  where  the  warrant 
is.  It  was  given  to  Chittenden  when  the  Grand 
Jury  sat.  Never  seen  it  since.  Made  no  re 
turn  on  it.  Kept  it  till  I  sent  it  up  to  Chitten 
den.  Got  it  in  Commissioner's  office.  Jen 
nings  and  I  went  together  after  it.  Don't  know 
which  took  it.  I  carried  the  warrant  to  Ober- 
lin.  Jennings  took  the  power  of  attorney. 
Davis  went  with  me  from  Columbus.  He  is 
jailer  there,  and  also  deputy-sheriff.  I  am 
deputy-sheriff.  Don't  know  as  there  was  any 
arrangement  with  Jennings  as  to  compensation. 
Had  before,  on  other  occasions,  charged  $2  a 
dayr  and  expenses.  Jennings  offered  me  $1 00, 
if  we  got  the  negro.  I  refused  it.  Was  intro 
duced  to  Mitchell.  We  four  talked  the  matter 
over.  Did  not  tell  our  business  to  Wack. 
Went  to  see  Warren  on  Saturday.  Also  called 
on  Dayton.  Told  them  our  errand.  Never 
saw  John  till  we  took  him.  Spent  Saturday 
round  town.  Jennings  and  Mitchell  kept  close. 
Davis  went  along  to  Warren's.  I  had  been 
there  only  twice  before.  Both  times  on  the 
same  kind  of  business.  Did  not  learn  the  loca 
tion  of  many  negroes.  Went  to  Boynton's 
about  three  or  four  o'clock.  Mrs.  Boynton 
quizzed  around  Jennings.  Told  her  we  wanted 
to  buy  cows.  She  said  the  General  would  not 
be  home  till  tea  time.  Saw  Shakespeare  that 
ni^ht,  but  said  nothing  to  him  about  our  plan 
till  Sunday  P.  M.  Had  spoken  to  Boynton 
about  it,  Sunday  A.  M.  I  had  not  talked  with 
Boynton  about  hiring  the  boy.  Think  I  said  to 
Jennings  the  boy  would  do  as  well  as  anybody. 
Jennings  said  he  would  see  the  boy ;  followed 
him  as  he  went  after  the  cows.  Jennings  told 
me  he  had  let  the  old  man  know  he  had  pro 
posed  to  Shakespeare.  Went  back  to  Oberlin 
little  after  sundown.  Got  back  little  after  dark. 
Did  not  leave  our  room  after  we  got  back  that 
night  —  it  was  Sunday  night  —  till  we  went  away 
finally  on  Monday.  None  of  our  party  went 
'  away  Monday  morning  and  came  back  to  eat. 


118 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Found  John  about  two  and  a  half  miles  from 
Obcrlin,  in  a  wagon  with  Shakespeare.  Drove 
up  on  the  right  hand  side,  Davis  sitting  on  the 
left  hand,  and  I  driving.  Jennings  had  the 
power  of  attorney.  I  had  the  warrant.  John 
was  seized  about  as  soon  as  the  buggy  came  to 
a  stand-still.  Mitchell  took  hold  of  John,  I 
think.  John  first  stepped  on  the  ground. 
Mitchell  got  out  and  spoke  to  John,  and  shook 
hands  with  him.  I  had  before  told  John  he 
could  get  out  of  the  buggy  and  get  into  my 
wagon ;  I  would  take  charge  of  him.  Did  not 
tell  him  I  had  papers  for  him,  till  we  were 
started  for  Wellington.  Think  John  asked 
where  we  were  taking  him.  We  said, "  to  Ely- 
ria."  John  said,  "  All  right."  When  we  got 
where  we  turned  off — say  half  a  mile  —  John 
asked  where  we  were  turning  to.  I  told  him  I 
had  a  warrant,  and  was  going  to  take  him  back 
to  his  master.  Read  the  wa/rant  to  him,  and 
showed  it  to  him. 

Regarded  John  as  arrested  by  virtue  of  the 
warrant,  from  the  time  I  got  into  the  buggy. 
Went  to  Wellington,  washed.  Had  Wads- 
worth's  buggy.  Did  not  tell  AVadsworth  why  I 
went  to  Oberlin.  Arrived  at  Wellington  be 
tween  1  and  2  o'clock.  Started  from  Oberlin 
a  little  after  1 1  o'clock.  Drove  moderately  to 
Wellington.  Ordered  dinner  there.  No  trouble 
with  crowd  before  dinner.  Good  many  peo 
ple  in  bar-room.  Paid  little  attention  to  them. 
Acted  before  them  as  if  travelling  in  company 
with  John.  Can't  tell  when  I  got  through  din 
ner.  Saw  first  excitement  after  dinner  —  heard 
hollering.  I  looked  out  of  the  north  door,  saw 
Watson  drive  up  to  north-west  corner.  He  was 
just  in  the  act  of  getting  out  of  the  buggy.  Did 
not  know  Watson  then.  Watson  was  calling 
to  people  to  assist  him,  I  concluded  from  his 
language.  Did  n't  hear  him  use  the  word  "  kid 
napper."  He  might  have  used  it.  Don't  know 
as  I  heard  it  from  anybody.  Can't  tell  what 
word  Watson  used.  Stepped  right  back.  Mitch 
ell  and  Davis  then  went  up  into  the  room.  Jen 
nings  was  not  there  then  —  came  in  half  an 
hour.  I  staid  in  bar-room  till  Jennings  came. 
Noticed  persons  came  in  and  out  before  Jen 
nings  came  —  can't  tell  who.  Watson  came 
about  an  hour  after  I  did.  Others  were  in 
room  up  stairs  when  Jennings  came  —  came  to 
ask  how  and  why  we  arrested  John.  We  re 
plied  frankly  —  supposed  we  answered  them 
correctly.  Think  I  told  them  I  had  him  under 
a  warrant.  Supposed  myself  to  have  him  in  cus 
tody.  When  Jennings  came  I  told  him  he  must 
take  charge  of  John.  I  could  not,  under  the 
circumstances,  have  the  care  of  him  any  longer. 
Could  not  risk  him  any  longer  with  such  a 
crowd.  As  an  officer  I  know  I  can  take  a  fu 
gitive  before  a  commissioner,  when  I  arrest  him 
under  a  warrant.  Don't  know  as  it  is  my  duty 
to  do  so.  Supposed  I  had  the  privilege  either 
to  bring  him  before  commissioner,  or  surrender 
him  to  the  master.  Jennings  remarked  in  re 
ply,  "  All  right :  I  supposed  I  had  charge  of 


him  all  the  time."  No  more  was  said  about  cus 
tody.  Did  not  stop  to  make  return  on  the  war 
rant,  that  I  had  delivered  him  to  his  master. 
My  duties  as  deputy-marshal  were  now  through. 
Acted  afterwards  as  aid  of  Jennings.  Did  take 
the  warrant  down  to  read  to  the  crowd,  after 
wards,  at  the  request  of  Fatten.  Don't  know 
whether  it  was  read.  Showed  warrant  to  Ben 
nett,  to  show  by  what  authority  I  had  made  the 
arrest.  Don't  know  as  I  told  Bennett  that  I 
had  surrendered  the  custody  to  Jennings. 
Think  I  did  tell  him.  Think  I  showed  both 
papers,  and  explained  what  we  had  done. 

Did  you  say  to  Bennett  that  you  arrested 
John  by  the  warrant,  but  had  handed  John  over 
to  Jennings,  who  held  him  by  power  of  attorney  ? 

Don't  know.     Think  I  did. 

Why  did  you  show  the  warrant? 

Because  I  wanted  to  show  why  I  had  arrested 
him. 

Did  you  tell  Dickson  that  you  had  only  ar 
rested  John  under  warrant,  but  had  afterward 
given  the  custody  to  Jennings,  who  had  John 
under  a  power  of  attorney  ? 

Think  I  did. 

Are  you  sure  ? 

I  asked  Dickson  if  he  would  assist  us.  Think 
I  then  explained  to  him  the  whole  transaction. 
Have  definite  recollection  that  I  or  Jennings 
told  Dickson  that  Jennings  now  held  him  under  a 
power  of  attorney.  I  feel  positive  that  I  told 
this  to  Dickson.  Don't  know  that  I  told  Wheel 
er.  I  can't  say  that  I  told  Patton.  Can't  say 
whether  Patton  was  there  when  Dickson  was. 
I  recollect  conversation  with  Bennett  and  Dick- 
son.  No  recollection  of  a  separate  conversa 
tion  with  Patton.  Told  Meacham,  Mandeville, 
Sciples,  and  some  other  men  present.  Can't 
tell  whether  Patton  was  there  when  Meacham 
came  in  to  arrest.  Think  this  was  the  second 
time  that  Meacham  was  there. 

Was  this  on  the  upper  or  lower  floor  ? 

It  was  on  the  lower  floor  that  I  had  given  up 
custody  to  Jennings.  Meacham  said  he  had 
warrant  for  three  men  who  had  the  negro. 
I  told  him  that  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  I 
should  not  obey  it.  I  referred  him  to  Jennings, 
saying  he  had  charge  of  the  negro.  I  told  him 
perhaps  he  had  better  not  be  too  fast  to  take 
those  men ;  if  the  negro  was  lost  he  would  be 
liable ;  he'd  better  ask  advice.  He  went  away 
—  came  back  and  said  he  should  not  arrest  un 
less  indemnified. 

Did  you  not  take  Meacham,  Sciples,  and 
Soules  into  your  posse  ? 

I  called  on  them  to  help  me.  I  did  call  on 
them  to  help,  as  deputy-marshal.  Can't  explain 
why  I  called  for  help  as  deputy-marshal  when 
I  had  surrendered  custody  to  Jennings.  Did 
not  know  I  had  lost  right  of  acting  as  deputy- 
marshal  by  surrendering  custody  to  Jennings. 
Was  advised  that  I  had  not,  by  Stanley  Mat 
thews. 

[Mr.  BACKUS  :  Stanley  Matthews  never 
gave  such  advice.] 


OBEKLIN-WELL1NGTON  RESCUE. 


119 


Had  not  forgotten  -when  I  called  for  help  that 
I  had  surrendered  the  custody  to  Jennings.  Do 
"you  admit  you  cautioned  these  men  against 
their  course  by  referring  to  the  Clarke  County 
case,  and  thus  showed  the  danger  of  resisting 
the  marshal  ? 

Don't  recollect  any  such  conversation  with 
Patton. 

Do  you  recollect  the  conversation  referred 
to,  well  enough  to  say  that  you  did  n't  make 
such  reference  ? 

Can  only  say  I  have  no  recollection  of  such 
conversation.  Can  remember  part  of  such  con 
versation.  I  think  that  in  the  part  of  the  con 
versation  which  I  do  not  remember.  I  did  not 
refer  to  the  Clarke  County  case.  Do  not  rec 
ollect  conversation  with  Squire  Howk.  Can't 
say  but  what  I  had  conversation  with  another 
magistrate  beside  Howk.  Think  it  was  half  an 
hour  from  the  time  I  showed  the  paper  to 
Meacham,  till  I  went  down  with  Patton  to  read 
papers.  Went  at  the  request  of  Patton  and 
Meacham.  Had  not  before  this  offered  to  go 
to  the  Town  House  to  read  the  warrant.  Did  n't 
so  offer  any  time  in  the  day.  Did  n't  say  any 
thing  to  any  of  them  about  going  to  the  Town 
House  to  show  papers. 

When  Meacham  was  in  the  act  of  arresting 
you,  did  n't  you  say,  "  you  can't  arrest  a  Unitetl 
States  officer  discharging  his  duty  ?  " 

Think  not  —  nothing  to  that  effect.  Refused 
to  go  only  because  I  thought  he  had  no  right  to 
arrest,  because  I  was  a  deputy-marshal.  May 
have  told  him  so.  That  was  the  reason  in  my 
own  mind  why  I  refused  to  go.  When  I  pro 
posed  to  Jennings  to  go  down,  I  proposed  he 
should  go  and  read  the  papers.  Think  Patton 
read  the  papers.  I  might  have  started  to  read 
them,  and  Patton  took  them  out  of  my  hands. 
Patton  said  to  the  crowd  "  be  silent  and  I  will 
read  the  papers."  Don't  know  that  there  was 
any  explanation  to  the  crowd  that  I  was  a  dep 
uty-marshal  arresting  under  warrant,  etc.  War 
rant,  if  ^'ead,  was  read  as  a  paper  under  which 
the  custody  then  was.  Am  sure  Patton  read 
more  than  one  paper ;  read  one  wholly,  can't 
tell  whether  it  was  the  power  of  attorney  or 
the  warrant.  Hearing  a  noise,  I  made  for  the 
house,  taking  th«  papers  from  Patton's  hand. 
Had  no  conversation  with  Patton,  Dickson  or 
Bennett,  or  any  one  that  afternoon  with  regard 
to  a  seal  being  wanting  to  a  paper. 

Did  not  Dickson  say,  "  I  see  no  defect  except 
it  wants  a  seal  ? 

No  recollection.  Think  I  can  swear  no  such 
thing  occurred.  Don't  recollect  of  any  thin_ 
being  said  to  the  crowd  between  reading  the 
papers.  Took  two  minutes  to  get  back  to  the 
room.  It  was  getting  dusk.  As  I  passed 
through,  the  hall  was  partially  dark.  It  was 
immediately  upon  hearing  the  noise  at  the  back 
door  that  I  went.  At  the  head  of  the  second 
pair  of  stairs.  I  could  n't  tell  a  white  man 
from  a  black.  In  lower  stories  not  quite  so 
dark.  Think  I  first  saw  Langston  in  front  of 


he  house.  Sent  for  him  'cause  I  supposed  he 
was  a  reasonable  man. 

Did  n't  you  tell  him  that  you  arrested  John 
on  a  warrant  and  was  going  to  take  him  before 
~hittenden,  a  commissioner  at  Columbus,  where 

3  should  have  a  fair  hearing  ? 

Might  have  said  so.  Don't  recollect  showing 
him  any  warrant.  Before  this  there  had  been 
a  proposition  to  have  a  committee  go  to  Colum- 
3iis.  Don't  recollect  whether  Patton,  Dickson , 
or  Howk  were  there  when  I  had  first  conversa- 
ion.  Some  of  the  folks  said  Langston  was  do- 
ng  all  he  could  to  pacify  the  crowd,  but  they 
would  n't  hear.  Some  of  the  time  he  talked  as 
f  he  was  willing  to  have  the  boy  taken  to  Co- 
umbus,  and  see  if  the  examination  was  fair. 
Said  he  'd  rather  not  see  any  trouble  there  or 
any  of  us  get  into  trouble.  I  replied,  "  no  use 
of  talking,  we  are  going  to  hold  him  as  long  as 
we  can." 

Did  n't  he  say  "  I  won't  interfere  any  way  ?  " 

He  did  not  —  am  sure.  ...  As  Langston 
rose  from  the  bed  he  said,  "  we  will  have  him 
any  how."  I  was  surprised.  I  asked  no  ex 
planation.  I  was  not  excited,  at  any  time 
luring  the  day.  I  felt  disappointed  when 
Langston  said  what  he  did.  Mitchell  and  Jen 
nings  were  in  the  other  room  while  this  conver 
sation  was  going  on. 

Direct  examination  resumed. 

[Warrants  shown  witness  by  District- Attor 
ney.]  This  is  the  warrant  I  had. 

Cross  resumed.  Don't  know  whether  I  read 
the  warrant  very  carefully  or  not ;  don't  know 
whether  the  quirk  at  the  end  was  made  into  an 
L.  S.  Did  not  hear  the  warrant  objected  to 
because  it  had  no  seal. 

[The  warrant  was  now  filed  in  evidence 
subject  to  exceptions.  We  introduce  it  with  a 
c<5py  of  the  affidavit  upon  which  it  was  based.] 

United  States  of  America,  ^ 
Southern  District  of  Ohio.  ) 

Before  me,  S.  Chittenden.  Am  United 
States  Commissioner  within  and  for  said  Dis 
trict,  personally  came  this  September  10th, 
A.  D.  1858,  Anderson  Jennings,  who,  being 
duly  sworn  to  tell  the  whole  truth  and  nothing 
but  the  truth,  deposeth  and  saith ;  that  on  or 
about  January  15th,  1857,  the  negro  slave 
John,  being  the  property  of  one  John  G. 
Bacon  of  Mason  County,  Kentucky,  did  es 
cape  from  the  service  and  possession  of  his  said 
owner,  and  is  now  a  fugitive  within  the  State 
of  Ohio;  and  that  the  said  John  is  a  person 
held  to  labor  in  the  State  of  Kentucky  (U.  S.) 
under  the  laws  of  said  State ;  and  that  he  is 
a  person  owing  service  to  his  said  owner;  and 
that  he  has  escaped  into  and  is  now  a  fugitive 
slave  as  aforesaid  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 
therefore,  subject  to  arrest  under  the  Act  of 
Congress  in  such  case  provided  ;  —  and  further 
this  deponent  saith  not. 

ANDERSON  JENNINGS. 


120 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Sworn  and  subscribed  by  Anderson ") 
Jennings  before  me  this  10th  day  > 
September,  A.  D.  1858.  ) 

S.  CHITTEXDEN, 

U.  S.  Commissioner,  S.  Disk  Ohio. 

United  States  of  America,  Southern  7 
District  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  ss.     ) 
To  the    United    States  Marshal   and   to  any 
Deputy  United  States  Marshal  of  said  Dis 
trict:  Greeting: 

Whereas  complaint  has  been  made  before 
me,  an  United  States  Commissioner  within  and 
for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio,  upon  the 
oath  of  Anderson  Jennings,  that  the  negro 
slave  John,  late  of  the  County  of  Mason  and 
State  of  Kentucky,  and  the  property  of  John 
G.  Bacon,  resident  in  said  County,  did  on  or 
about  January  15th,  1857,  escape  from  the 
service  and  possession  of  his  said  owner,  and  is 
now  a  fugitive  within  the  State  of  Ohio ;  and 
that  the  said  John  is  a  person  held  to  labor  in 
the  State  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  laws  of  said  State ;  and  that 
he  is  a  person  owing  service  to  his  said  owner ; 
and  that  he  has  escape*!  into  and  is  now  a 
fugitive  slave  as  aforesaid  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  therefore  subject  to  arrest  under  the  law 
of  Congress  in  such  cases  provided :  — 

These  are  therefore  to  command  you  and 
each  of  you  to  take  the  said  John,  a  fugitive 
and  person  escaped  from  service  by  him  owed 
to  John  G.  Bacon  as  aforesaid,  and  one  held 
to  labor  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky,  as  afore 
said,  if  he  be  found  within  the  limits  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  and  him,  the  said  John,  safely  to 
keep,  so  that  forthwith  you  have  his  body 
before  some  United  States  Commissioner, 
within  and  for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio 
aforesaid,  there  to  answer  the  said  complaint, 
and  be  further  dealt  with  according  to  law. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  at  Columbus 
this  10th  day  September,  A.  D.  1858. 

S.  ClIITTENDEN,  [L.  S.] 

U.  S.  Commissioner  for 
Southern  District  of  Ohio. 

Sterne  CJiittenden.  Was  acting  Commission 
er.  Had  never  issued  a  warrant  before.  Sup 
posed  I  had  power  to  issue  this  warrant.  I  put 
the  scroll  there.  Put  it  there  for  a  seal.  I 
called  it  a  seal.  Do  not  remember  any  thing 
being  said  about  the  discrepancy. 

Anderson  Jennings  being  recalled  swore  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  warrant  and  of  the  affi 
davit. 

Samuel  Davis.  Live  at  Columbus.  Have, 
off  and  on,  for  eight  years.  Was  along  at  the 
time  of  the  arrest,  also  when  John  was  taken  out 
on  the  platform.  Saw  defendant  in  the  room  two 
or  three  times  that  afternoon.  Talked  to  the 
crowd  in  there.  He  wanted  us  to  release  John, 
to  let  him  go.  This  was  but  a  few  minutes  be 
fore  the  rescue.  We  told  him  we  would  not. 
We  were  going  to  hold  oh  to  him.  This  was 


in  the  upper  room,  in  the  room  where  the  negro 
was.  He  turned  round  and  said,  u  We  will 
have  him  any  how."  John,  Lowe,  myself, 
Mitchell  and  Jennings  were  presented.  I  don't 
know  that  Lowe  was  there.  He  went  out  once 
or  twice ;  I  know  that  defendant  was  in  the 
room  two  or  three  times.  He  came  in  there 
and  appeared  to  me  to  be  excited.  This  was 
about  sun-down.  Jennings  had  charge  of  John 
during  the  afternoon. 

TENTH  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Cross-Examination.  Jennings  got  me  to  go. 
It  was  the  Friday  before  the  Rescue  that  we 
left.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  know  that  I 
could  get  off.  Jennings  was  to  give  me  $2  a 
day  and  expenses.  No  other  bargain.  I  was 
deputy-sheriff  and  jailer.  Not  deputy-marshal. 
Had  had  no  business  connection  with  him  be 
fore.  Never  saw  him  before.  Lowe  introduced 
me  to  him.  Asked  me  if  I  would  go  to  Ober- 
lin  with  him  to  get  John  and  Frank. 

Was  there  any  arrangement  between  you, 
Jennings,  Mitchell,  and  Lowe  about  keeping 
the  nature  of  your  business  private  ? 

Objected  to. 

Objection  overruled. 

Don't  know.  No  arrangement  before  we  got 
there.  Not  a  word.  After  we  got  there  some 
body  said  we  couldn't  get  the  negro  —  think  it 
was  on  Sunday  this  was  said  —  think  it  was  on 
the  steps  of  Wack's  hotel.  The  remark  was 
addressed  to  the  party  standing  about.  Left 
Oberlin  about  11  o'clock,  to  arrest  John. 
Lowe,  Mitchell,  and  I  went. 

At  whose  instance  did  you  go  to  arrest 
John? 

Don't  know. 

To  aid  whom  did  you  go  ? 

To  aid  Jennings  in  executing  his  power  of 
attorney. 

Didn't  know  whether  Jennings  was  to  go  or 
not.  Think  Jennings  was  to  meet  us  .^t  Wel 
lington.  Jennings  was  to  stay  behind  to  pay 
the  bills.  Supposed  I  was  aiding  Jennings  in 
the  arrest.  Believe  I  first  found  out  at  Wel 
lington  that  Lowe  had  a  warrant. 

What  had  Lowe  said  about  the  custody  of 
John  ? 

Not  any  thing.  In  the  room  in  the  third 
story  something  was  said  about  the  nigger's  be 
ing  put  into  the  custody  of  Jennings. 

What  makes  you  think  he  was  taken  into 
Jennings's  custody  up  there? 

Can't  tell. 

Prosecution  Rested. 
Witnesses  for  the  Defence. 
E.  S.  Kinney.  ...  I  went  to  Wellington  for 
the  same  purpose  that  others  did,  to  release  a 
man  that  had  been  kidnapped.   I  did  not  get  to 
Wellington  until  after  John  was  rescued.     We 
left  Oberlin  about  5,  p.  M. 

Cross-examined.    Winsor  was  in  the  wagon 


OBEKLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


121 


•with  Bushnoll,  swinging  a  gun,  and  saying,  "  All 
is  well."  A  majority  of  the  crowd  went  to 
wards  Oberlin,  after  John  went  away.  The 
cry  in  the  crowd  was,  that  some  one  had  been 
kidnapped.  It  was  with  the  understanding  that 
John  had  been  kidnapped  that  I  went. 

Joseph  II-  Dicfoon.  Live  at  Wellington.  Am 
a  lawyer.  Was  in  Wellington  the  1 3th  of  Sept. 
last.  .  .  .  Was  at  the  Town  Hall.  Watson 
came  and  made  affidavit  and  got  out  a  warrant 
for  three  persons  by  fictitious  names.  Did  not 
know  who  it  was  that  was  in  custody.  Bennett 
issued  the  warrant.  Howk  sat  with  him.  Next, 
Meacham  came  for  me  with  a  message.  Said 
the  defendant  in  that  warrant  wished  to  see  me. 
He  went  with  me.  Was  admitted  to  the  room 
where  the  negro  was,  by  Lowe.  This  was  in 
the  attic,  and  at  about  three  in  the  afternoon. 
Don't  remember  about  Meacham's  going  in  with 
me.  Lowe  said,  "  My  name  is  Lowe."  I  said, 
"  Lowe  the  marshal  ?""  He  said,  "  Yes."  Said 
I,  "  Are  you  the  man  that  has  this  man  in  cus 
tody  ?  "  He  replied,  "  I  am."  I  asked  him  by 
what  authority.  He  said  he  had  a  warrant. 
Took  it  from  his  pocket  and  showed  it  to  me. 
I  sat  down  on  the  bed  and  read  the  warrant. 
I  said  to  Lowe,  I  saw  nothing  irregular  about 
it,  except  that  there  was  no  seal  on  it.  Lowe 
said  it  was  not  customary  for  such  papers  to 
have  a  seal.  That  it  was  issued  by  a  Commis 
sioner  who  was  a  very  good  lawyer.  After 
ward  I  talked  with  Jennings  about  buying  John. 
Us  asked  fourteen  hundred  dollars.  Mitch 
ell  advised  him  to  take  less.  Nothing  said 
about  Jennings  being  an  agent  for  the  owner 
on  a  power  of  attorney.  .  .  .  No  other  paper 
was  shown  me  then,  nor  was  any  thing  said 
about  any  other  paper  under  which  he  was  held. 
I  asked  Lowe  for  his  authority,  and  he  showed 
me  his  warrant  Heard  nothing  about  a  power 
of  attorney  until  the  indictment  was  found. 
Know  that  nothing  was  said  about  a  power 
of  attorney  to  me,  or  in  my  hearing,  that 
day.  .  .  . 

Cross-examined.  I  was  sent  for  to  go  to  the 
room.  Meacham  came  for  me.  Said  he  was 
sent  by  Lowe.  I  swear  that  no  power  of  at 
torney  was  shown  me:  I  drew  the  affidavit  on 
which  the  warrant  was  issued.  I  said  to  the 
crowd  that  the  warrant  appeared  all  right  ex 
cept  that  it  had  no  seal.  1  referred  to  a  stamp 
seal.  But  my  recollection  is,  that  no  scroll  seal 
was  observed  by  me.  After  leaving  the  room, 
I  went  to  a  drug  store  and  drew  an  indemnify 
ing  bond  for  the  constable.  Distance  to  Elyria, 
sixteen  miles.  I  advised  them  to  abstain  from 
all  interference.  I  advised  those  who  talked 
with  me  about  the  bond,  not  to  sign  it.  Think 
Lowe  said  to  me  he  wanted  I  should  communi 
cate  what  I  had  heard  as  to  the  authority  by 
which  John  was  held.  The  object  in  getting 
out  the  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  Jennings,  etc., 
was  to  arrest  them  for  kidnapping.  Watson 
alleged  that  John  was  a  freeman. 

Direct  examination  resumed.  I  did  not  ad- 

16 


vise  against  resorting  to  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus. 

Cross-resumed.  I  did  not  advise  about  getting 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Said  that  the  Probate 
Judge  was  the  only  one  that  had  the  power  to 
issue  that  writ.  I  then  understood  so,  and  do 
now,  that  the  Probate  Judge  had  such  power. 

Direct  resumed.  Had  no  conversation  with 
Jennings  in  which  Mason  County  seal  was 
spoken  of. 

Isaac  Bennett.  Live  at  Wellington.  Am  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace.  Between  two  and  three 
in  the  afternoon,  Watson  came  into  the  Town 
House.  Said  a  man  had  been  kidknapped, — 
made  affidavit.  I  questioned  him  as  to  his  be 
ing  free.  He  said  he  supposed  they  were  tak 
ing  him  without  any  authority  whatever.  I 
issued  the  warrant.  Next,  I  heard  that  John 
had  been  arrested  on  a  warrant. 

ELEVENTH  DAY. — MORNING  SESSION. 
Thursday,  May  5. 

[The  Court  was  not  in  session  yesterday,  be 
ing  in  attendance  upon  the  festivities  connected 
with  the  marriage  of  its  only  daughter.  This 
morning  the  trial  proceeds.] 

Loring  Wadsworth,  Daniel  Williams,  and 
Eli  Boies  have  been  released  from  jail  on  $500 
bail  each. 

Court  convened  at  9  o'clock.  Before  pro 
ceeding  with  the  trial  of  Charles  Langston, 
Judge  SPALDIXG  presented  a  motion  of  the 
counsel  for  the  defence, '  for  the  immediate  sen 
tence  of  Simeon  Bushnell,  who  has  been  convict 
ed  by  the  jury,  the  special  cause  for  this  motion 
being  that  the  said  Bushnell  desires  and  in 
tends  to  apply  to  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  that  he  may 
be  set  at  liberty,  that  Court  having  decided 
upon  the  petition  lately  presented  that  the 
cases  had  not  proceeded  far  enough  to  have  the 
writ  granted,  the  defendants  not  having  been 
sentenced."  The  Court  received  the  motion, 
but  remarked  that  it  was  evident  that  when  he 
was  sentenced  there  would  be  another  interrup 
tion  of  the  proceedings  of  this  Court,  for  which 
reason  it  would  be  better  to  conclude  this  case 
before  passing  sentence  upon  Bushnell. 

Isaac  Bennett.  —  Examinalion-in-cldcf  con 
tinued.  The  constable  said  they  had  a  warrant. 
Asked  me  about  it.  I  told  him  not  to  send  the 
warrant,  if  they  had  papers.  Heard  of  the  in 
demnifying  bond.  Advised  against  signing  it. 
Was  gone  a  part  of  the  afternoon.  It  was 
about  a  half  hour  or  an  hour  before  the  Rescue 
when  J  went  to  the  room  where  John  was. 
Lowe,  I  think  in  the  ante-room,  showed  me  the 
warrant  I  read  it.  Made  the  same  observa 
tion  in  regard  to  it  that  Dickson  did.  I  ex 
pected  to  see  an  official  seal,  but  saw  none. 
Did  see  the  small  scroll  seal.  Lowe  said  he  was 
a  Deputy  United  States  Marshal,  and  had  John 
under  arrest.  After  this,  I  went  into  the  room 
where  John  was.  There  were  there  Lowe, 
Mitchell,  Jennings,  Mandeville,  I  think  Soules, 


122 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


and  perhaps  Sciples.  Think  Mr.  Meacham  was 
with  me  at  the  entrance  in  the  ante-room  with 
Lowe.  Don't  recollect  what  was  said  in  the 
room  with  John  except  that  Jennings  took  a 
paper  out  of  his  pocket  and  handed  it  to  me, 
saying  it  was  a  power  of  attorney.  I  took  it  — 
did  not  read  it  Handed  it  back,  and  nothing 
moi#  was  said  about  it.  I  think  this  was  said, 
—  that  they  would  go  down  and  show  their 
paper,  or  papers,  to  the  crowd.  Don't  know 
but  he  said  (Lowe)  that  he  would  go  to  the 
Town  House.  He  said  so  at  one  time,  and  I 
think  it  might  have  been  then.  Don't  recollect 
who  proposed  it.  Lowe  said  nothing  to  me 
of  any  other  paper,  nor  did  he  say  that,  there 
was  any  thing  but  a  warrant,  and  he  said  it  was 
that  under  which  he  held  him.  Not  a  word 
was  said  about  the  boy  having  been  arrested 
under  the  power  of  attorney,  nor  about  his  hav 
ing  been  arrested  under  a  warrant  and  then 
turned  over  to  Jennings  to  hold  under  his  power 
of  attorney.  Never  heard  of  this  until  to-day 
in  Court. 

Lowe  went  below  and  commenced  reading 
a  paper,  which  Patton  took  and  finished  read 
ing.  J  was  about  six  feet  from  them,  at  the 
left.  He  had  one  paper  only.  I  understood 
that  the  paper  read  was  the  warrant.  Saw 
nothing  and  heard  nothing  of  another  paper 
then.  I  never  heard  the  claim  there  that  the 
boy  was  held  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attor 
ney.  I  dissuaded  from  violence,  etc.  A  good 
many  —  the  most  of  our  Wellington  folks  coin 
cided  with  me  in  this.  There  were  four  hundred 
or  five  hundred  in  the  crowd  in  the  afternoon  ; 
the  most  at  the  last.  At  this  time  about  two 
thirds  or  three  fourths  of  them  were  made  up  of 
Wellington  people,  and  people  from  its  vicinity. 
All  there  then  that  I  talked  with,  agreed  with 
me.  I  don't  recollect  of  conversing  with  any 
one  but  our  people  there.  Saw  defendant  to 
wards  sun-down,  on  the  platform  south  of  the 
tavern.  There  was  quite  a  crowd  there,  dis 
cussing  the  propriety  of  serving  the  Justice's 
warrant.  Langston  said  it  was  best  to  take  le 
gal  measures  if  any,  and  not  do  any  thing  by 
force.  I  think  he  expressed  that  opinion  gen 
erally.  I  had  some  talk  with  defendant  about 
serving  this  warrant.  I  thought  it  better  not 
be  served.  He  thought  it  had.  I  said  I  thought 
the  constable  had  better  not  interfere  with  the 
authority  of  the  United  States  if  they  had 
commissioner's  warrant.  I  think  that  Langst 
said  that  a  constable,  if  he  had  a  process  put 
into  his  hands  was  under  obligation  to  serve  it. 
That  a  constable  couldn't  judge  of  any  thing 
outside  of  his  warrant.  It  was  somewhere  in 
connection  with  that,  that  he  said  was  best  to 
pursue  legal  measures  and  avoid  violence.  This 
is  the  only  time  that  I  saw  him  that  day. 

William  Hoick.  I  spoke  to  defendant  Lang 
ston.  Asked  him  if  he  was  brother  of  J.  M. 
Langston.  He  said  he  was.  He  (Langston) 
thought  it  best  to  have  a  public  examination. 
Said  that  he  did  n't  mean  to  have  any  thing 


a 

ton 


illegal  done.  He  told  a  man  to  keep  quiet 
This  conversation  took  place  shortly  before  the 
rescue.  Just  at  the  time  of  this  conversation, 
Lowe  came  down  to  read  his  warrant  .  .  . 

.  .  .  Cross-examined.  Langston  said  he 
did  not  want  any  thing  illegal  done.  But  he 
thought  it  was  due  to  the  people  that  there 
should  be  a  trial  on  the  magistrate's  warrant 
Did  not  hear  him  say  that  the  negro  ought  to 
be  rescued  whether  the  papers  were  right  or 
wrong.  Don't  know  what  the  man  or  men 
that  defendant  advised  to  be  quiet  was  or  were 
doing.  ...  I  have  given  all,  in  substance,  that 
I  heard  Langston  say. 

Direct  resumed.  The  great  majority  of  the 
crowd  stood  looking  on.  There  was  talking 
and  laughing.  I  was  there  myself  to  keep  the 
people  quiet.  Heard  Doctor  Boies  advising  to 
quiet.  Saw  no  appearance  of  any  taking  the 
lead.  .  .  . 

Direct  resumed.  I  was  on  the  ground  all  the 
time,  from  the  time  I  left  the  Town  House  until 
the  boy  was  taken.  Saw  what  was  going  on. 

B.  Meacham,  Constable  at  Wellington.  I 
was  there  all  day.  Crowd  there  attracted  by 
the  fire  at  2,  P.  M.  A  man  from  Oberlin  (Wat 
son)  came  in  the  Town  House  not  far  from 
three  in  the  afternoon.  Got  a  warrant  for 
arrest  of  the  Southerners.  I  went  immediately 
to  the  attic.  Went  alone,  I  think,  at  first 
There  was  quite  a  crowd  around  the  house 
when  I  first  weftt  there.  They  were  then  keep 
ing  people  out.  Wadsworth  told  me,  on  telling 
my  business,  that  I  could  go  in.  Think  the 
door  of  the  room  the  boy  was  in  was  fastened. 
Think  a  man  by  the  name  of  Phelps  went  up 
with  me.  Found  Lowe,  Jennings,  and  Mitchell 
there.  Wadsworth  also  was  in  the  room.  May 
have  been  more  there.  Don't  remember 
whether  Jacob  Wheeler  was  there.  I  applied 
to  Lowe.  Told  him  I  had  a  warrant.  Com 
menced  reading  it  to  him.  He  said  I  had  no 
authority  to  arrest  him.  That  he  had  a  war 
rant  that  he  had  got  at  Columbus,  signed  by 
one  of  the  Commissioners.  Showed  me  the 
warrant.  Claimed  to  hold  the  man  under  the 
warrant.  No  claim  to  hold  him  under  any 
other  paper.  None  shown.  Nothing  said 
about  a  power  of  attorney,  nor  about  an  agent 
Jennings  was  lying  on  the  bed.  Took  no  part 
in  the  conversation.  Lowe  said  he  was  mar 
shal,  and  held  the  boy  in  custody  under  the 
warrant  Had  been  in  the  room  but  a  few 
minutes  when  I  went  out.  Went  to  see  Esq. 
Dickson  or  Bennett  on  my  own  motion.  Saw 
Dickson.  Eeturned  with  him  to  the  room. 
Lowe  read  the  warrant  to  us.  Dickson  read 
it.  Said  he  saw  no  defect  in  the  warrant  ex 
cept  the  want  of  a  seal.  Lowe  said  none  was 
necessary.  Dickson  advised  me  not  to  arrest 
Lowe  showed  me  his  authority  —  his  warrant 
Nothing  but  the  warrant  showed  to  me  and 
Dickson.  Jennings  staid  on  the  bed.  Took 
no  part  in  the  conversation.  Nothing  said  then 
by  any  one  about  a  power  of  attorney,  nor 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


123 


about  his  being  held  under  any.  Lowe  did  not 
say  that  he  had  arrested  him  under  the  war 
rant,  and  had  turned  him  over  to  Jennings  to 
be  held  under  a  power  of  attorney,  nor  any 
thing  of  the  kind.  I  kept  before  Dickson. 
Heard  nothing  said  then  about  the  purchase  of 
the  negro.  I  returned  again  pretty  late  in  the 
afternoon.  I  had  refused  to  make  the  arrest. 
A  good  many  were  urging  that  I  ought  to  make 
the"  arrest.  As  I  went  in  the  third  time,  either 
Soules,  Mandeville,  or  Sciples  asked  me  to  go 
in  with  them,  or  I  asked  them  to  go.  I  went 
this  time  to  get  Lowe  to  exhibit  his  papers  to 
the  crowd.  My  impression  is  that  three  men 
stood  at  the  back  door  below  and  volunteered 
to  go.  Lowe  hesitated,  but  finally  agreed  to 
go  out  and  read  his  warrant.  Nothing  was 
said  at  that  time  by  any  one  about  a  power  of 
attorney.  None  showed.  Jennings  said  noth 
ing  then,  nor  to  me  that  day.  Patton  read 
the  warrant  below.  It  was  then  I  saw  him  for 
the  first  time.  I  told  the  people  before  I  went 
up,  that  I  would  go  up  and  get  Lowe  to  come 
down  and  show  his  warrant.  When  we  came 
down,  I  think  I  said  to  the  crowd,  if  they  would 
listen,  Lowe  would  read  his  authority.  He 
commenced,  but  Patton  took  it  and  read  it. 
Lowe  was  not  able  to  read  it  well.  Ejut  one 
paper  shown  then.  Never  heard  any  thing  said 
about  a  power  of  attorney  until  the  first  trial. 
Warrant  was  read  to  the  crowd.  Saw  Lang- 
ston  two  or  three  times  in  the  afternoon.  He 
spoke  to  me  about  serving  the  warrant  I  had. 
Did  not  see  him  after  I  went  to  the  room  the 
last  time.  Defendant  said  it  was  my  duty  to 
serve  the  warrant. 

Cross-examined.  Defendant  did  advise  me 
to  serve  the  warrant  several  times.  1  was 
round  in  the  crowd.  I  was  trying  to  get  sign 
ers  on  the  bond.  Some  signed  the  bond,  I 
think,  but  it  did  not  come  into  my  hand  after 
it  was.  signed.  Told  defendant  of  this.  De 
fendant,  and  perhaps  fifty  or  a  hundred  others, 

urged  me  to  sign  it Don't  know  what 

passed  after  I  left  the  room  with  Dickson. 
Lowe  did  not  refer  me  to  Jennings,  as  the  per 
son  who  had  John  under  a  power  of  attorney. 
The  warrant  was  all  he  claimed  under.  Lowe 
said  he  would  take  the  negro  to  Columbus  or 
to  Cleveland,  and  have  an  examination,  and  if 
he  was  not  legally  held,  he  should  be  given  up. 

John  G.  W.  Cowles.  Was  at  Wellington 
and  at  Oberlin  on  the  13th.  Arrived  at  a  lit 
tle  after  one  in  the  afternoon  at  Oberlin.  No 
excitement  then.  W'ent  to  my  home,  three 
fourths  of  a  mile.  Learned  first  of  the  arrest 
of  John*  about  two  in  the  afternoon.  Had 
walked  home  and  taken  dinner.  Was  in  my 
room,  when  Patton  and  Scrimgeour  came  to  my 
room  in  haste,  and  told  me  a  boy  had  been 
kidnapped.  Asked  me  to  get  up  my  horse  and 
go  in  pursuit.  Did  get  it  up.  We  then  started 
ibr  Wellington.  Saw  a  crowd  at  Watson's 
store.  Went  right  by.  If  it  were  half  past 
one  that  the  team  arrived,  it  must  have  been 


late  that  we  started.  It  took  me  fifteen  min 
utes  to  walk  home,  twenty  minutes  to  eat  din 
ner,  was  in  my  room  five  minutes,  took  five 
minutes  to  harness  up.  We  passed  some  parties 
on  the  road.  Watson  got  there  first.  Met  a 
boy  coming  back  on  horseback.  Said  John 
was  there.  Said  there  was  a  crowd  about  the 
hotel  then.  There  was  not  two  hundred  then 
—  think  150  scattered  all  about  the  square. 
Mostly  away  from  the  hotel.  There  seemed  to 
be  men  standing  all  around  the  hotel.  Noticed 
none  at  the  time  I  arrived.  Saw  nothing  like 
organization,  or  any  one  giving  directions.  It 
was  at  first  said  that  he  was  a  boy  who  had 
been  at  work  on  the  railroad,  and  that  he  had 
been  taken  while  the  others  were  at  dinner. 
This  was  afterwards  corrected  by  the  true  state 
ment.  First  I  heard  that  it  was  claimed  that 
there  was  any  authority  for  holding  him.  I 
heard  it  from  Patton.  This  was  an  hour  or  more 
after  our  arrival.  He  said  that  he  knew  the 
man  who  had  him ;  it  was  Lowe,  of  Columbus, 
a  Deputy-Marshal  —  had  him  under  a  warrant. 
Nothing  more  was  said  during  the  whole  time, 
as  to  any  other  paper  than  a  warrant.  Saw 
John  Watson  on  the  porch  above,  some  time  after 
our  arrival.  He  came  out  of  the  house,  gestic 
ulated,  and  said  the  boy  had  been  kidnapped. 
Told  the  crowd  to  keep  quiet,  to  wait.  As 
soon  as  they  could  have  the  men  arrested,  it 
would  all  be  right.  That  they  would  have 
them  arrested.  This  was  before  I  had  heard 
from  Patton  that  there  was  a  warrant.  Saw 
Bennett  on  the  platform  after  this.  Among 
the  first  things  that  I  heard,  after  my  arrival, 
was,  that  John  had  been  brought  out.  Mr. 
Marks  told  me  that  the  boy  had  been  out,  and 
said  he  wanted  to  go  back.  I  •  told  him  that 
amounted  to  nothing ;  that  under  different  cir 
cumstances,  he  would  tell  a  different  story  — 
that  he  could  say  nothing  else,  with  them  at  his 
back.  Intimated  that  he  had  told  John  to 
come  out.  Said  they  would  have  had  John,  if 
the  guns  had  not  been  pointed  and  scared  him. 
Said  we  (Democrats)  want  John  as  much  as 
you  do. 

ELEVENTH  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

It  was  the  smaller  portion  of  the  crowd  who 
had  weapons.  Some  of  them  that  seemed  to 
be  excited,  a  third  or  a  quarter  of  the  crowd. 
I  heard  a  number  of  persons  say  that  what 
they  wanted  was  some  one  to  take  the  lead.  I 
replied,  "  keep  quiet "  —  that  things  were  go 
ing  well  enough  as  it  was  —  that  Patton  had 
gone  up  stairs,  and  would  learn  how  the  thing 
was.  Some  feared  the  train  would  come  in, 
etc.  I  was  not  in  the  attic  room.  Saw  Lowe 
on  the  steps  ;  Patton  by  his  side.  I  heard  they 
had  come  down,  and  were  reading  a  warrant. 
This  I  learned  on  asking  for  Patton,  of  the 
landlord.  He  said  he  had  gone  out,  and  was 
reading  the  warrant.  WTent  to  him.  He  was 
reading  it.  I  looked  over  his  shoulder,  and 
read  it.  There  was  no  other  paper  read  there, 


124 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


or  begun  to  be  read.  I  know  there  was  no 
other  paper  there.  This  was  but  a  few  min 
utes,  not  more  than  from  ten  to  fifteen,  before 
the  rescue.  Lowe  said  something  —  that  it  was 
not  customary  to  have  a  seal,  in  reply  to  Pat- 
ton's  remark,  after  he  had  finished  reading  the 
warrant,  that  he  noticed  the  warrant  lacked  a 
seal.  He  said  it  was  not  the  custom  to  have 
one.  Lowe  then  appealed  to  the  crowd  that, 
as  they  saw  he  had  the  proper  papers,  they 
should  let  him  go  on  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duty.  Did  not  see  Mr.  Langston  there,  to  my 
knowledge. 

Cross-examined.  Mr.  Patton  began  to  tell 
the  crowd,  after  he  had  read  it,  that  the  war 
rant  had  no  seal.  The  portion  of  the  warrant 
relating  to  the  power  of  attorney  had  been  read 
before  I  got  there.  From  one  hundred  to  two 
hundred  persons  near  the  place  where  the  war 
rant  was  read.  Did  not  hear  the  reply  to  the 
reading  of  the  warrant,  that  they  "  did  not  care 
for  the  papers,  they  would  have  the  boy  any 
way."  Patton  and  Scrimgeour  went  with  me. 
The  first  intimation  that  I  had  that  there  was 
any  warrant  or  legal  authority  for  holding  John, 
was  from  Mr.  Patton,  about  an  hour  after  we  got 
there.  He  had  been  up  stairs  and  returned. 
The  first  information  I  had  was  derived  from 
Mr.  Patton.  Afterwards  it  was  talked  of  in 
the  crowd.  Understood  that  there  was  a  mar 
shal  there.  This  was  after  4  o'clock,  p.  M.,  at 
least  an  hour  and  a  half  before  the  rescue.  I 
heard  it  said  that  it  was  claimed  that  John  was 
a  negro  slave.  Do  not  recollect  of  hearing  any 
one  remark  that  he  was  a  fugitive ;  but  some 
said  he  should  not  go  South,  at  any  rate.  The 
front  door  was  locked.  I  applied  at  the 
back  door  for  .admission  to  go  up  stairs,  but  was 
refused.  Marks  and  Wood  said  they  knew 
John.  Said  nothing  as  to  his  being  a  fugitive. 
These  were»  the  Democrats,  who  said  they  were 
as  anxious  as  we  to  have  John  get  away.  Don't 
recollect  but  these  two,  who  knew  John. 

James  L.  Patton.  .  .  .  The  first  I  heard  when 
I  got  into  the  crowd  was,  that  John  had  been 
put  on  the  platform.  I  set  myself  to  work  to 
inquire  into  the  real  state  of  things.  Learned 
but  little,  for  some  time.  Three  quarters  of  an 
hour  after  I  came  there,  John  Watson  came  out 
on  to  the  platform.  Said  he  had  been  in  — 
seen  the  boy  —  talked  with  him ;  that  the  boy 
had  been  kidnapped.  He  first  asked  the  crowd 
to  wait  and  keep  quiet;  that  a  warrant  was  be 
ing  got  out  for  those  who  had  him  in  custody, 
and  as  soon  as  this  could  be  done,  and  they  had 
been  taken  before  the  magistrate  the  boy  would 
be  set  at  liberty.  This  was  not  far  from  4 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  Don't  remember  that 
any  thing  was  said  in  reply  to  this.  .  .  *.  Lowe 
said  nothing  to  me  about  there  being  an  agent 
or  power  of  attorney,  or  that  he  had  arrested 
him  and  turned  him  over  to  the  agent,  or  any 
thing  of  this  kind.  .  .  .  Lowe  complained  to  me 
that  the  5  p.  M.  train  was  gone,  and  he  now 
would  have  to  wait  till  8,  P.  M.  We  had  a  con 


versation  about  his  g^ing  to  the  Town  Hall,  or 
obeying  the  warrant,  so  as  to  go  and  show  his 
papers.  He  urged  that  he  should  not  go,  be 
cause  he  was  a  United  States  Marshal ;  that 
they  had  no  right  to  serve  the  warrant  on  him 
for  that  reaso».  .  .  .  He  objected  to  going  down, 
on  excuse  of  personal  safety.  I  assured  him  he 
should  be  safe.  He  then  went  down  with  me. 
The  constable  was  ahead  of  us.  Lowe  wanted 
to  stop  at  the  back  door.  Took  him  to  front 
side,  south  of  it.  I  or  the  marshal  called  the 
crowd.  Lowe  took  the  warrant  out  of  his 
pocket  and  handed  it  to  me.  I  read  it.  I  ob 
jected  to  it  for  its  want  of  an  official  seal.  Lowe 
said  it  was  not  customary  to  have  one.  He  then 
said  they  had  seen  his  authority,  and  now  he 
wanted  them  to  let  him  go.  A  man  whom  I 
did  not  know,  stepped  up  and  said  that  he  was  a 
stranger,  and  what  he  could  say  would  have  no 
influence  on  the  crowd,  but  that  he  thought  the 
crowd  would  pay  no  attention  to  the  papers. 
This  address  was  in  a  tone  not  calculated  to 
reach  the  crowd.  There  was  no  other  reply. 
As  this  gentleman  was  yet  talking  with  Lowe, 
we  heard  a  noise  at  the  back  door.  Lowe  said 
advantage  had  been  taken  of  his  absence.  We 
then  went  to  the  room,  and  the  stranger  with 
us.  When  we  got  to  the  door,  Lowe  spoke. 
Said  he  wanted  myself  and  the  stranger  to  come 
in.  We  went  in.  After  we  got  in,  the  stranger, 
Lowe,  and  myself,  went  to  the  other  side  of  the 
room.  Jennings,  Mitchell,  and  Davis  were  in 
the  room.  Do  not  remember  Sciples,  Mandeville, 
etc.  We  urged  upon  Lowe  the  policy  of  let 
ting  the  boy  go.  The  stranger  said,  "  You  had 
better  let  the  boy  go  than  to  lose  your  life." 
Lowe  said,  No  —  that  he  knew  what  the  law 
was  —  that  he  could  not  let  the  boy  go  without 
being  liable  for  the  boy.  Just  then  there  was 
a  rush  —  the  window  was  broken  in.  There 
was  a  number  in  the  hall  as  we  passed  in.  Ne 
gotiated  about  letting  the  boy  go.  Appealed 
to  Jennings  —  no  response.  Lowe  finally  ask 
ed  if  we  would  protect  him  if  he  let  the  boy 
go.  We  said  we  would.  He  said  to  Jennings 
he  did  not  want  the  house  torn  down  —  these 
people  had  befriended  them. 

Jennings  then  let  the  door  go  gradually 
open.  I  had  shouted  to  the  persons  outside 
the  door,  and  asked  if  they  would  stand  by  me 
in  protecting  the  men  if  they  gave  up  the  boy. 
They  said  they  would.  As  the  door  opened  I 
asked  where  the  boy  was.  Just  then  he  passed 
by  me  with  some  one  with  him.  He  passed 
down.  It  was  getting  dark  then,  but  I  could 
see  so  as  to  recognize  persons  in  the  room,  but 
not  on  the  outside.  The  boy  went»out  with 
one  who  was  there  when  I  went  in.  Only 
one  was  with  him.  No  one  came  in.  This 
was  the  third  time  I  was  there.  I  heard  noth 
ing  said  about  a  power  of  attorney.  I  never 
heard  of  that  power  of  attorney  except  as  it  is 
recited  in  the  warrant  until  the  former  trial.  It 
was  not  read  or  commenced  to  be  read  when 
Lowe  was  below  reading  or  having  his  papers 


OBERLIN-WELLIXGTON  RESCUE. 


125 


read.  There  was  but  one  paper  read  there  or 
then.  Jennings  told  me  at  the  second  visit  to 
the  room  that  he  owned  the  boy.  At  the  time 
of  John's  escape,  the  persons  in  that  room  were 
Lowe,  Jennings,  Mitchell,  Davis,  Mandeville, 
Winsor,  I  think,  and  this  stranger,  Griffin. 
There  were  others,  but  I  did  not  know  their 
names.  Langston  was  not  in  the  room  to  my 
knowledge.  I  know  him.  Did  not  sec  Lang 
ston  when  I  went  up,  nor  in  the  inside  of  the 
building  at  all. 

Cross-examined.  Saw  defendant  on  the 
porch  that  afternoon.  The  negro  got  away 
just  as  I  have  stated.  I  did  not  describe  in  my 
testimony  before  the  manner  in  which  the 
negro  was  taken  out  of  the  room.  I  did  say 
that  I  saw  the  negro  put  into  the  wagon.  I 
did  not  go  out  of  the  door,  until  some  time  after 
the  negro  went  out.  He  went  out  with  that 
one  man  alone.  He  did  not  go  out  by  the 
order  of  Lowe,  Jennings,  Mitchell,  or  myself. 
Did  not  know  of  Jennings  getting  the  punch 
in  his  head.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  noise 
come  up  to  the  room  from  below.  No  one 
went  out  of  that  room  to  my  knowledge  before 
John  did.  After  ni)*  arrival  in  the  crowd  I 
heard  it  reported  that  there  was  a  warrant,  but 
heard  it  contradicted.  I  saw  the  warrant  in 
the  room,  but  did  not  read  it.  The  first  I  read 
it  was  at  the  time  I  read  it  to  the  crowd.  Be 
tween  half-past  four  and  five  I  communicated 
to  the  crowd  the  proposition  about  a  committee, 
made  by  Lowe.  I  may  have  said  to  them  that 
the  marshal  held  him  there  by  virtue  of  a  war 
rant  issued  by  a  court  of  the  United  States  — 
that  I  thought  the  marshal's  papers  or  authority 
were  right.  I  told  them  that  he  had  told  me 
that  he  had  telegraphed  to  Cleveland  for  aid  — 
that  if  they  wished  to  proceed  legally  they 
would  have  to  send  to  Elyria  —  that  if  they 
waited  to  do  that  it  would  be  too  late.  No 
reply.  As  to  the  Committee,  some  said  Colum 
bus  was  too  far  south.  The  marshal  did  not 
request  me  to  assist  him.  I  could  not  swear 
positively  that  no  one  came  into  the  window, 
because  my  back  was  turned  to  it  for  about  a 
minute.  I  never  spoke  to  John  in  my  life. 
The  name  of  the  stranger  is  Charles  C.  Griffin. 
I  heard  the  remark  from  some  one  the  first 
time  I  went  that  they  did  n't  care  any  thing 
about  the  papers,  they  would  have  the  negro  at 
any  rate.  I  supposed  the  man  that  went  out 
with  John  to  be  Winsor,  but  could  not  swear  to 
it.  Thought  so  because  I  had  seen  him  and 
John  walking  together. 

It.  II.  Stevens.  Reside  at  Obcrlin.  Did  in 
September  last  Was  there  when  the  young 
men  were  getting  together  to  go  to  Wellington. 
I  was  at  work.  Saw  men  moving  back  and 
fbnvard.  Asked  what  was  up.  It  was  replied 
that  John  had  been  kidnapped.  That  he  was 
taken  by  some  suspicious  characters  who  were 
hanging  'round  Waek's  tavern.  That  they 
had  no  legal  authority,  but  had  kidnapped  John. 
This  was  about  two  in  the  afternoon.  I  saw  no 


common  design  on  the  part  of  the  people  then. 
Xot  more  than  fifty  went  from  Oberlin  that  I 
saw.  Heard  no  other  statement  except  that 
John  was  kidnapped.  Never  heard  defendant's 
character  as  a  peaceable,  law-abiding  citizen 
called  in  question. 

Cross-examined.  Character  is  estimated  in 
Oberlin  somewhat  as  elsewhere.  The  people 
of  Oberlin  would  not  call  it  a  case  of  kidnap 
ping  if  a  slave  was  arrested  under  papers  m 
legal  form.  It  was  said  that  the  crowd  were 
going  to  rescue  John  from  the  kidnappers.  I 
heard  afterwards  that  the  suspicious-looking 
men,  who  were  hanging  about  Wack's,  were 
Kentuckians. 

John  Watson  was  called  to  contradict  the 
testimony  of  Sciplcs.  He  swore  positively  that 
he  was  not  upon  the  second  floor  of  Wads- 
worth's  tavern  with  Langston  a  second  time, 
nor  did  he  there  have  any  such  conversation 
with  him  as  was  averred  by  Sciples.  He  went 
after  Langston  at  Lowe's  request,  when  Lowe 
and  Langston  had  their  first  interview,  and  they 
went  up  to  the  attic  without  stopping.  And 
they  did  not  go  up  together  or  meet  up  there 
under  any  circumstances  afterwards. 

Mr.  BACKUS  here  remarked  that  the  defence 
had  but  one  more  witness,  who  had  been  tele 
graphed  for,  but,  owing  to  a  mistake  in  the  name 
telegraphed,  he  had  not  reached  the  city  as  yet. 
He  then  recalled  Mr.  Cowles  to  inquire  on  one 
or  two  points.  He  testified  emphatically  that 
no  one  passed  up  the  ladder  which  was  put  up 
to  the  attic  window  for  some  time  before  John 
was  rescued.  The  ladder  was  lifted  up  by  sev 
eral  men,  and  pushed  against  the  window  by 
which  the  window  was  broken.  No  one  passed 
up  the  ladder  at  that  time. 

TWELFTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 

On  the  opening  of  Court,  District- Attorney 
BELDEN  called  the  attention  of  the  Court  to 
the  following  cases  :  — 

United  States  v.  John  Mandeville. 

Same  v.  Henry  D.  Niles. 

Same  v.  Daniel  Williams. 

Same  v.  Robert  L.  Cummings. 

The  DISTRICT-ATTORNEY  stated  to  the 
Court  that  the  defendants  in  the  above  cases 
wished  to  withdraw  their  plea  of  Not  Guilty, 
and  enter  that  of  nolle  contendere.  He  said  he 
had  carefully  examined  into  the  facts  bearing 
upon  the  cases  of  these  men,  and  t^at  although 
a  breach  of  the  law  had  probably  been  com 
mitted,  he  was  satisfied  the  defendants  acted 
from  impulse.  He  viewed  the  cases  of  these 
men  in  a  different  light  from  those  who  came 
ten  miles  for  the  purpose  of  rescuing  John.  The 
defendants  were  poor  men,  had  voluntarily* 
come  forward  to  answer  to  this  indictment,  had 

*  A  tough  story;  the  District- Attorney's  agents 
had  been  "  at  them  "  for  a  number  of  days,  giving 
them  absolutely  no  rest  till  they  consented  to  this  ar 
rangement. 


126 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


borrowed  money  to  get  here  with,  and  wished 
to  save  expense  of  counsel  [a  truly  funny  idea], 
and  would  therefore  throw  themselves  upon  the 
Court.  The  District-Attorney  hoped  that  in 
consideration  of  these  facts  the  Court  would 
make  their  punishment  as  light  as  possible. 

The  COURT  called  upon  the  defendants  to 
rise.  It  then  asked  them  if  they  had  any  thing 
further  to  say  with  respect  to  their  cases.  They 
replied  that  Judge  BELDEN  had  substantially 
expressed  their  feelings  and  wishes. 

The  COURT  then  said  that  in  consideration 
of  the  arguments  offered  by  the  District- Attor 
ney,  it  would  make  the  punishment  light,  and 
would  name  as  the  penalty  twenty  dollars  fine, 
and  the  costs  of  the  prosecution,  and  imprison 
ment  in  Cuyahoga  County  Jail  for  24  hours. 

The  Marshal  chose  to  consider  Bennett's  For 
est  City  House  the  rendezvous,  and  the  city 
limits  the  bounds  of  "  Cuyahoga  County  Jail," 
and  enforced  the  sentence  accordingly. 

[As  the  precise  nature  of  the  plea  of  nolle 
contendcre  has  been  made  a  matter  of  consider 
able  dispute,  we  append  here  the  Journal  en 
try  of  the  Court  in  respect  to  these  defendants. 
The  first  case  will  serve  as  the  text,  the  entry 
being  similar  in  each  case. 

Friday,  May  6th,  1859. 

The  United  States  ^  No.  79. 

v.  >  Indictment  for  rescuing  a 

John  Mandeville.  )       fugitive  from  service. 

This  day  came  the  District- Attorney  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  the  said  defend 
ant  being  present  at  the  bar  of  the  Court  here, 
on  his  motion  the  said  defendant  has  leave  to 
withdraw  the  plea  of  Not  Guilty  before  entered 
to  the  said  indictment,  and  thereupon  the  said 
indictment  being  again  read  to  him,  he  protest 
ing  that  he  is  not  guilty  in  manner  and  form  as 
he  is  charged  in  said  indictment,  —  for  plea 
says  that  he  will  not  farther  contend  with  the 
said  United  States,  with  which  plea  the  Attor 
ney  for  the  United  States  is  content. 

It  is  farther  considered  by  the  Court  that  the 
said  defendant,  John  Mandeville,  be  imprisoned 
in  the  jail  of  Cuyahoga  County,  for  the  term  of 
twenty-four  hours,  and  pay  a  fine  of  twenty 
dollars  and  the  costs  of  this  prosecution. 

And  thereupon  the  said  defendant  is  commit 
ted  to  the  custody  of  the  marshal  of  this  Dis 
trict,  to  be  by  him  forthwith  conveyed  to  the 
jail  of  Cuyahoga  County,  in  pursuance  of  the 
sentence  of  the  Court.] 

The  examination  of  witnesses  then  pro 
ceeded. 

Nelson  Sexton.  On  the  morning  of  Sept. 
13th,  heard  it  said  that  a  boy  had  been  kid 
napped  and  taken  off.  Shortly  after,  a  boy 
came  from  Wellington  on  horseback  and  re 
ported  that  the  kidnappers  had  the  boy  at  Wel 
lington.  I  spoke  to  him  several  words.  Said 
he  came  to  inform  the  people  of  Oberlm. 


Cross-examined.  I  live  at  La  Grange.  I 
was  in  Oberlin  that  day  to  make  arrangements 
to  study  —  am  studying  there  now.  First  saw 
the  excitement  at  Watson's  store  about  one  or 
two  o'clock.  Don't  recollect  seeing  Langston 
in  the  crowd.  Think  the  remark  to  which  I 
have  testified  was  made  by  Mr.  Lyman. 

Clark  Elliot.  Live  in  Oberlin.  Was  there 
Sept.  13th,  1858.  Was  among  the  crowd  at 
Oberlin.  It  was  said  in  the  crowd  that  John 
Price  had  been  kidnapped.  Heard  no  other 
representation  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
was  taken  away.  Nearly  two  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  when  my  attention  was  first  attracted 
to  the  crowd.  Cannot  say  how  many  people 
left  that  afternoon. 

Isaac  M.  Johnson.  Live  at  Oberlin.  About 
2,  P.  M.,  Sept.  13,  1858,  persons  came  up  to  a 
buggy  in  the  street,  and  inquired  "  whose  was[- 
on  that  was  V  "  The  owner  said,  "  Whatss 
up  ?  "  "  Why,  a  man  has  been  kidnapped  and 
we  want  to  go  after  him."  They  took. the 
wagon  and  started  after  him.  Bartholomew 
and  Lyman  it  was  said,  had  seen  John  in  the 
hands  of  the  Southerners. 

Henry  Evans.  AVas  m  Wadsworth's  Hotel 
at  the  time  of  the  Rescue,  in  the  third  story  of 
the  building.  There  was  a  door  leading  out  of 
the  entry  into  the  room  in  which  he  was,  swing 
ing  out  towards  me.  I  had  been  in  this  ante 
room  twenty  minutes.  Was  then  at  the  door 
on  the  side  it  opened.  There  was  no  handle 
to  the  door  on  the  side  towards  me.  There 
was  no  person  went  out  of  the  ante-room  in 
which  I  was  into  that  in  which  John  was,  ex 
cept  Lowe  and  Patton,  and  perhaps  another. 
As  soon  as  the  door  opened  John  passed  out, 
and  only  one  man  with  him.  Langston  was 
not  there. 

Cross-examined.  There  were  eight  in  the 
ante-room.  Lincoln,  Scott,  Butler,  Fox,  Cope- 
land,  llutledge,  Nevins,  and  self.  There  was 
but  one  man  armed  that  I  have  knowledge  of. 

(On  the  question  as  to  whether  the  witness 
was  armed,  the  defence  urged  that  he  should 
not  be  forced  to  give  in  any  evidence  that 
might  tend  to  criminate  himself  or  be  used  by 
the  District-Attorney  when  the  witness  was  put 
on  his  own  trial.  Ai'ter  some  discussion  by 
counsel  the  Court  ruled  that  the  witness  could 
refuse  to  answer  if  he  chose,  but  if  he  did  his 
whole  testimony  would  be  ruled  out.) 

Witness  had  a  small  rifle.  W'hen  John  came 
out,  Winsor  came  out  with  him  and  partly  car 
ried  him. 

/.  L.  Wadsworth.  Was  at  Wellington  on  the 
day  of  excitement ;  saw  the  negro  come  down 
the  stairs ;  witness  was  at  the  head  of  the  first 
flight  of  stairs ;  had  been  there  a  short  time ; 
went  into  the  house  at  the  rear  ;  when  the  Mar 
shal  went  out  to  read  the  papers,  witness  had  a 
conversation  with  Langston  —  he  thinks  it  was 
at  that  time  —  at  the  front  door  right  against 
the  door  post;  this  conversation  was  either 
when  the  Marshal  came  out  to  read  the  papers^ 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


12T 


or  it  was  after  the  boy  escaped.  Was  present 
only  about  half  an  hour. 

Win.  Bryce.  Lives  in  Cleveland ;  is  a  law 
yer  ;  was  in  during  trial  of  Bushnell,  and  heard 
R.  A.  Cochran  give  his  testimony  in  that ;  heard 
him  also  in  this.  In  the  Bushnell  ease  Cochran 
testified  that  he  was  not  present  at  the  time  the 
acknowledgment  was  made ;  think  he  said  the 
first  time  he  saw  that  acknowledgment  was  after 
he  came  here. 

Cross-examination.  Witness  has  no  doubt 
that  Cochran,  in  the  Bushnell  case,  swore  he 
was  not  present  when  the  acknowledgment  was 
taken ;  and  in  this  case  he  testified  ^that  before 
the  parties  left  his  office  he  came  in  and  sug 
gested  some  alterations,  which  were  made  ;  this 
difference  in  his  testimony  surprised  the  witness 
when  he  heard  it. 

Direct  resumed.  Mr.  Cochran,  in  the  first 
case,  said  he  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the 
acknowledgment. 

Mr.  Patton  bein£  recalled,  testified  to  the 
above  discrepancy  in  the  testimony  of  llobert 
A.  Cochran  in  the  two  trials. 

Mr.  Coiclcs,  being  recalled,  testified  as  to 
Cochran's  testimony  m  the  first  trial,  that  he 
had  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  acknowledg 
ment. 

Here  the  defence  rested,  with  the  exception 
of  several  witnesses  upon  this  point  of  the  im 
peachment  of  Cochran,  which  should  afterwards 
be  brought  in. 

Prosecution  in  rebuttal. 

William  Sciples,  recalled.  I  was  at  the  foot 
of  the  stairs  in  the  lower  story  at  the  time  John 
was  taken  out,  at  the  front  door.  As  John 
came  down  there  were  two  had  hold  of  him, 
one  on  each  side.  Langston  and  Watson 
came  up  to  where  I  and  Jacob  Wheeler  were 
standing,  and  went  up  stairs,  and  three  or  four 
minutes  after  that,  John  came  down.  I  was 
standing  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs  at  the  request 
of  Wadsworth. 

Cross-examined.  Had  been  down  but  a 
few  minutes,  not  ten  minutes.  Came  down 
from  the  room  where  John  was  with  Jennings, 
Mitchell,  Doland,  and  Dr.  D.  Wadsworth. 
What  I  said  was,  that  John  Watson  was  the 
only  man  in  the  crowd  in  the  hall  above,  who, 
a  short  time  before  had  been  talking  about 
£oing  to  Elyria  after  a  Writ.  J  did  not  say 
before,  that  Watson  was  the  only  man  in  the 
crowd  that  went  up  in  the  first  rush,  that  I 
knew. 

Jacob  Wheeler,  recalled.  I  was  in  the  front 
of  the  house  when  John  passed  out.  Sciples  and 
I  had,  a  few  minuses  before,  been  standing  at 
the  foot  of  the  stairs  to  prevent  the  crowd  from 
going  up  stairs.  About  the  time  we  were 
standing  there  the  defendant  and  Watson  and 
another  colored  man  came  there  and  wanted 
to  go  up  and  we  let  them  go  up.  It  might  have 
been  five  minutes  before  the  boy  came  down. 


TWELFTH  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Cross-examined.  The  trouble  about  the 
gun  happened  after  Watson  and  Langston  went 
up  first.  I  was  not  standing  at  the  stairway 
with  Sciples  guarding  the  door  there.  Think 
this  was  after  Lowe  went  down,  but  am  not  sure. 

Jacob  K.  Lowe,  recalled.  Was  in  the  room 
when  John  was  taken  out.  Cannot  state  that 
I  saw  any  one  come  into  the  room  just  before 
John  left.  From  eight  to  twelve  were  in  the 
room  when  John  went  out.  Patton  did  not 
talk  through  the  door  of  the  room,  nor  say  that 
if  we  would  give  up  the  negro  we  should  be 
protected,  nor  any  thing  of  the  sort. 

Cross-examined.  Witness  recollects  no  con 
versation  about  letting  the  boy  go  for  fear  they 
would  injure  Mr.  Wadsworth's  house ;  pretty 
positive  that  witness  had  conversation  with 
Patton  after  returning  to  the  room ;  don't  know 
that  Patton  returned  to  the  room  with  wit 
ness ;  the  remarks  made  to  witness  by  the 
stranger  to  the  effect  that  the  people  would  not 
regard  the  warrant,  was  made  before  the  time 
Patton  says  it  was. 

Mr.  Jennings,  recalled  by  prosecution. 
There  was  no  conversation  between  witness 
and  Patton  about  letting  John  go ;  Mr.  Patton 
halloed  to  the  crowd  outside  that  he  would 
have  the  nigger  soon ;  he  asked  witness  to  let 
John  go,  and  he,  witness,  slacked  up;  the 
crowd  came  in  and  John  was  taken  out  and 
Patton  backed  out  with  them ;  Langston  came 
in  to  the  door  with  the  crowd  when  John  was 
taken  out. 

Mr.  Bennett,  recalled  by  defence.  Witness 
is  acquainted  with  William.  Sciples  and  has 
been  for  six  or  seven  years ;  the  character  of 
Sciples  for  truth  and  veracity  is  not  as  good  as 
men's  in  general.  Would  believe  him  under 
oath  in  some  cases. 

Mr.  MeacJiam,  recalled  by  defence.  Wit 
ness  has  known  Sciples  for  seven  years ;  his 
reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  not  as 
good  as  men's  in  general ;  should  not  believe 
him  on  oath. 

Mr.  Watson,  recalled  by  defence.  Witness 
went  up  stairs  but  oncS  during  the  afternoon 
with  Langston,  this  was  before  any  paper  was 
read  at  all.  (This  contradicts  Sciples). 

Mr.  Glllct,  sworn.  Lives  in  Wellington ; 
have  known  Sciples  six  or  seven  years ;  it  is 
generally  believed  he  is  not  a  man  of  truth ;  it 
is  not  as  good  as  men's  in  general.  Would  not 
believe  him  under  oath  if  he  were  interested. 

(This  witness  is  one  of  the  indicted  and  has 
the  snows  of  seventy-four  winters  upon  his 
head.  The  sensation  in  Court,  as  this  old 
man,  one  of  the  most  respectable  citizens  of 
Lorain  County,  and  of  the  State,  came  from 
the  jail,  was  very  decided  and  deep.) 

Loring  Wadstcorth,  has  known  Sciples  for 
ten  years.  Would  not  believe  him  under  oath 
if  he  were  interested. 

Here  the  testimony  closed,  and  the  argu- 


128 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


ment  for  the  prosecution  was  opened  by  Dis 
trict-Attorney  BELDEX.  As  in  the  former 
case  we  can  find  no  better  reports  of  the  argu 
ments  for  the  Government  than  those  given 
in  the  city  dailies.  The  report  of  Judge  BEL- 
DEN'S  speech  is  cut  from  the  Herald,  and  that 
of  Judge  BLISS  from  the  Leader. 

District-Attorney  BELDEX  opened  for  the 
Government.  After  introductory  remarks  he 
took  up  the  testimony  in  the  case  under  the 
several  heads. 

1st.  The  District- Attorney  assumed  that  it  is 
proved  that  John  was  a  slave  of  Bacon's,  and 
escaped  into  Ohio,  and  was  pursued  by  Bacon's 
agent,  and  seized  as  alleged  in  the  indictment. 
Those  facts  are  so  plain  that  he  would  not  spend 
time  upon  them.  That  John  was  rescued,  he 
argued,  was  equally  plain,  unless  it  be  true  that, 
as  Patton  says,  Jennings  let  him  go.  The  Dis 
trict-Attorney  argued  "that,  even  if  the  negro 
was  given  up  by  fear  of  destruction  of  proper 
ty,  etc.,  was  just  as  much  a  rescue  as  if  actually 
forced  from  them. 

Counsel  then  commented  upon  the  power  of 
the  master  to  take  his  slave  either  by  himself  or 
agent,  and  claimed  that  the  power  of  attorney 
was  properly  executed  and  was  good ;  he  char 
acterized  the  attempt  to  impeach  Mr.  Cochran 
as  impotent  and  miserable.  Counsel  then  passed 
on  to  the  manner  in  which  John  was  captured 
at  Oberlin,  arguing  that  the  course  pursued  by 
Jennings  was  the  proper  one,  owing  to  the  state 
of  feeling  at  Oberlin. 

Counsel  then  passed  on  to  the  agency  Langs- 
ton  had  in  the  rescue,  characterizing  his  con 
duct  as  very  cunning  and  very  hypocritical,  very 
shrewd,  but  very  deceiving.  Counsel  then  ar 
gued  as  to  the  evidence  showing  the  exhibition 
at  Wellington  of  the  power  of  attorney,  claim 
ing  that  it  was  well  known  to  Lan^ston  that 
there  was  such  power  in  the  hands  of  Jennings  ; 
that  the  crowd  knew  as  well  about  the  exist 
ence  of  the  power  of  attorney  as  they  did  of 
the  warrant. 

The  District- Attorney  then  said  he  would 
read  some  law  to  the  jury.  Here  Mr.  Backus, 
counsel  for  the  defence,  arose  and  asked  if  he 
understood  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  was 
about  to  follow  the  case  of  the  Wanderer,  in 
South  Carolina,  where  counsel  claimed  that  the 
jury  were  the  judges  of  the  law  as  well  as  the 
facts ;  and  where  the  Federal  Court  held  that 
the  jury  were  the  judges  of  the  law.  Mr.  Bel- 
den  thereupon  became  very  much  excited,  and 
pronounced  Mr.  Backus  a  demagogue,  —  said 
the  Court  of  South  Carolina  did  not  hold  any 
such  thing.  Mr.  Backus  said  such  was  the 
newspaper  report.  And  thereupon  Mr.  Belden 
grew  as  black'in  the  face  as  the  Devil  is  painted, 
and  yelled  out,  "Fes,  newspaper  reports,  they 
are  pretty  authority,  when  the  very  atmosphere 
we  breathe  is  blackened  with  their  lies"  The 
District- Attorney  evidently  hates  newspapers. 

The  District- Attorney  cooled  down  and  came 
back  to  the  case,  arguing  that  the  proof  showed 


a  common  intent,  and  therefore  notice  to  one 
of  the  crowd  was  notice  to  all.  He  argued, 
also,  that  Langston  was  in  the  crowd  not  to 
seep  the  peace,  not  to  punish  kidnappers,  but 
to  rescue  the  negro.  Counsel  claimed  that  the 
negro  was  in  the  custody  of  Jennings  from  the 
time  Jennings  arrived  in  Wellington ;  the  ex 
pressions  used  by  Langston  were  pointed  out 
and  commented  upon  as  proving  his  agency  in 
the  rescue. 

THIRTEENTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 

District-Attorney  BELDEX  continued  his  ar 
gument,  and  made  the  following  proposition 
which  he  claimed  to  be  law,  to  wit,  That  if  a 
party  interfere  with  a  Federal  officer,  who  is 
discharging  his  duty,  by  arresting  him  under 
legal  process  issued  by  State  authority,  the  in 
terference  is  as  unlawful  as  the  interposition  of 
violence  would  have  been,  and  the  fact  that  in 
terference  was  made  under  cover  of  legal  pro 
cess  can  be  plead  not  in  justification  of  the  act, 
but  merely  for  mitigation  of  sentence  after  con 
viction.  The  proposition  was  sustained  by  a 
citation  from  a  newspaper  (whether  one  "  black 
ened  with  lie,"  the  District- Attorney  did  not 
say),  of  a  recent  decision  in  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Booth  case.  This  de 
cision  was  pronounced  by  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
and  the  point  referred  to  is  as  follows :  — 

"  And  although,  as  we  have  said,  it  is  tho 
duty  of  the  marshal  or  other  person  holding 
him  to  make  known  by  a  proper  return  the  au 
thority  under  which  he  detains  him,  it  is  at  the 
same  time  imperatively  his  duty  to  obey  the 
process  of  the  United  States ;  to  hold  the  pris 
oner  in  custody  under  it,  and  to  refuse  obedience 
to  the  mandate  or  process  of  any  other  govern 
ment.  And  consequently  it  is  his  duty  not  to 
take  the  prisoner,  nor  suffer  him  to  be  taken, 
before  a  State  Judge  or  Court  upon  a  habeas 
corpus  issued  under  State  authority.  Ko  State 
Judge  or  Court,  after  they  are  judicially  in 
formed  that  the  party  is  imprisoned  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  has  any  right  to 
interfere  with  him,  or  to  require  him  to  be 
brought  before  them.  And  if  the  authority  of 
a  State,  in  the  form  of  judicial  process  or  oth 
erwise,  should  attempt  to  control  the  marshal 
or  other  authorized  agent  of  the  United  States 
in  any  respect,  in  the  custody  of  his  prisoner,  it 
would  be  his  duty  to  resist  it,  and  to  call  to  his 
aid  any  force  that  may  be  necessary  to  main 
tain  the  authority  of  the  law  against  illegal  in 
terference.  No  judicial  process,  whatever  form 
it  may  assume,  can  have  any  lawful  authority 
outside  of  the  limits  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Court  or  Judge  by  whom  it  is  issued ;  and  an 
attempt  to  enforce  'it  beyond  these  boundaries 
is  nothing  less  than  lawless  violence." 

[If  the  above  is  good  law,  our  State  Courts 
have  no  right  to  inquire  into  the  validity  of  any 
process  purporting  to  issue  from  the  United 
States  Courts.  Even  if  all  the  papers  were  to 
tally  irregular,  the  fact  they  were  issued  by  a 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


129 


Federal  official  is  sufficient,  and  the  State  Court 
has  no  authority  to  interfere.  That  places  the 
United  States  Commissioner  above  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio ;  under  the  warrant  of  the  for 
mer,  even  if  he  entirely  transcends  the  plain 
letter  of  the  Fugitive  Law,  and  sends  his  war 
rant  out  of  his  own  District,  even,  the  State 
Court  cannot  interfere.  According  to  this  doc 
trine,  Lowe  could  —  had  he  seen  fit  —  have 
held  John  under  a  warrant  admitted  to  be  void, 
and  the  State  writ  of  habeas  corpus  would  be 
powerless.  The  doctrine  is  as  monstrous  as 
that  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.] 

The  argument  of  the  government  this  morn 
ing  was  only  upon  legal  points  involved  in  the 
case. 

The  District- Attorney  claimed  that  the  res 
cue  was  made  from  Jennings,  the  agent  of  the 
owner  of  the  slave,  aided  and  assisted  by  Lowe, 
the  Marshal. 

Mr.  GUISWOLD  opened  the  argument  for  the 
defence. 

May  it  please  the  Court,  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Jury :  I  quite  agree  with  the  District- Attor 
ney  in  the  desire  expressed  by  him,  that  this 
case  should  be  tried  upon  its  own  merits,  and  with 
out  reference  to  any  outside  influences.  It  is 
manifest,  however,  that  this  is  a  case  of  peculiar 
interest,  —  that  considerable  excitement  has  at 
tended  this  prosecution,  and  that  this  case  has 
become  and  still  is  a  matter  of  much  public  re 
mark  and  comment.  I  doubt  not  that  the 
novelty  of  this  prosecution  has  in  part  contrib 
uted  to  this ;  for  although  we  live  in  a  District 
containing  over  a  million  of  inhabitants,  and 
not  a  day's  journey  distant  from  a  large  extent 
Slave  Territory,  yet  this  is  the  second  case  which 
has  ever  occurred  of  a  prosecution  for  the  viola 
tion  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1850,  or  ol 
that  of  1  793.  Of  the  other  causes  out  of  which 
the  public  interest  and  excitement  have  arisen,  ] 
need  not  speak,  for  I  cordially  unite  with  th 
District- Attorney  in  urging  you  to  judge  of  this 
case  impartially  and  without  bias  for  or  agains 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Yet  when  I  heard  the 
learned  gentleman  urging  you  to  give  this  case 
a  fair  and  candid  hearing,  I  could  not  shut  my 
eyes  to  the  fact,  that  you,  gentlemen,  had  been 
selected  as  jurors  from  the  ranks  of  one  politi 
cal  party.  I  mention  this  to  impium  no  man' 


part} 


impugn 


oil! 


motives,  or  to  impeach  the  integrity  of  any 
cer  of  this  Court.     Notwithstanding  your  polit 
ical  associations  and  affinities,  from  my  persona 
acquaintance  with  you,  and  my  knowledge  o 
your  characters,  I  have  confidence  to  bcliev 
that  while  acting  as  jurors,  you  will  lay  asid 
all  political  bias  or  prejudice,  and  in  nowise  b 
influenced  in  your  decision  by  any  such  consid 
eration.     For  I  see  among  your  number  men 
who  have  filled  with  credit  to  themselves  and 
satisfaction  to  the  public,  high  offices  of  trust, 
both  in  our  Municipal  and  State  Government, 
and  others,  who,  by  long  lives  of  industry  and 
integrity,  have  won  the  confidence  and  esteem 


17 


if  community,  and  certainly,  in  any  ordinary 
ase,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  I  would  as 
oon  intrust  the  interests  of  a  client  to  your 
:eeping  as  to  that  of  any  twelve  men  I  ever 
aw  empanelled  in  the  jury-box.     And  I  have 
dverted  to  this  matter  of  your  being  selected 
n  view  of  your  political  associations  only  the 
nore  earnestly  to  ask  of  you  to  judge  and  de 
cide  upon  this  case  regardless  of  any  such  in- 
luence  or  prejudice.     Again,  gentlemen,  there 
another  consideration  I  feel  bound  for  my 
client  to  call  to  your  attention,  and  to  press  upon 
,rour  notice.     You  know  that  this  right  of  the 
ury  trial  is  one  of  the  earliest  institutions  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon   race.     Upon   this   foundation  — 
upon  its  fairness  and  equity  —  has  the  super 
structure  of  all  our  liberties  been  erected.     To 
DC  tried  by  a  jury  of  his  peers  was  the  right  of 
he  humblest  man.     So  deeply  was  this  princi 
ple  of  fair  play  impressed  into  the  mind  of  the 
'ace  (except  in  the  case  of  Treason),  thisprivi- 
ege,  from  the  early  days,  was  extended  to  all 
aliens  and  denizens  within  the  realm.     An  alien 
or  denizen  was  entitled  to  be  tried  by  a  jury, 
one  half  of  whom  were  of  his  own  race  or  peo 
ple,  in  the  language  of  the  law,  by  a  jury  de 
medietatc  linguae.     I  am  aware  that  in  the  time 
of  Philip  and  Mary  this  right  was  abolished  as 
to  people  called  Egyptians.     It  was  owing,  per 
haps,  to  the  then  Spanish  Alliance,  and  not  to 
the  color  of  those  people.     But  this  harsh  pro 
vision,  as  Mr.  Chitty  calls  it,  was  repealed,  and 
the  right  restored  in  the  reign  of  George  III., 
and  so  far  as  1  know,  still  exists  in  England.    I 
I  am  aware  that  this  provision  has  not  become 
a  part  of  American  law,  for  all  men  in  this  land 
were  supposed  to  be  equals. 

This  may  have  been  theory,  but  my  client 
can  have  no  jury  of  his  race  or  color,  or  of  those 
who  are  his  peers.  Not  only  is  he  an  alien,  but 
in  the  view  of  the  law  which  governs  this  Court, 
he  is  an  outcast.  He  has  no  equality,  no  rights, 
except  in  being  amenable  to  the  penal  statutes. 
His  condition  is  described,  in  the  vulgar  language 
of  the  Kentucky  witnesses,  to  whom  in  every 
attribute  of  manhood  he  is  incomparably  supe 
rior,  as  being  "  only  a  nigger."  In  view,  there 
fore,  of  this  misfortune  of  his  birth,  —  of  his 
color  and  condition,  —  that  he  is  one  of  this 
outcast  race,  —  that  he  has  no  other  right  but 
that  of  bein£  punished,  I  ask  you  the  more  care 
fully  to  consider  his  case,  and  give  him  a  fair 
and  impartial  hearing.  I  ask  you  to  forget  his 
race  and  color,  and  try  his  case  as  though  he 
were  one  of  your  equals ;  as  though  he  were, 
as  he  is,  a  man,  and  had  rights  ;  to  try  him  in 
accordance  with  your  oaths,  and  the  well-estab 
lished  maxims  of  the  law,  —  that  he  must  be 
held  innocent  until  his  guilt  is  proven,  and  that 
guilt  established  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks  I  proceed  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  charges  in  the  indict 
ment  and  the  testimony  bearing  upon  them. 
The  issues  presented  by  the  indictment  and 
plea  hive  been  properly  stated  by  the  District- 


100 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Attorney.  And  first,  as  to  the  alleged  status  of 
John  in  the  State  of  Kentucky :  according  to 
the  rules  of  evidence  prevailing  in  our  State 
Courts,  he  has  not  been  proved  to  be  the  slave 
of  Bacon  ;  mere  possession  or  control  establishes 
no  property  in  man.  I  do  not  deny,  however, 
that  according  to  the  rulings  which  obtain  in 
this  tribunal,  the  status  of  John,  as  alleged, 
has  been  sufficiently  proven ;  and  so  as  to  his 
escape,  though  we  have  no  direct  proof  on  that 
subject. 

The  next  point  to  be  considered  is  the  execu 
tion  of  the  power  of  attorney.  That  John  G. 
Bacon  signed  the  power  of  attorney  I  do  not 
propose  to  controvert ;  but  that  it  was  a  legal 
power  of  attorney,  or  that  it  was  legally  exe 
cuted,  it  seems  to  me  cannot  be  claimed,  and  I 
address  myself  to  your  Honor,  by  any  rule  of 
law  that  obtains  in  Kentucky  or  elsewhere.  It 
is  shown  in  proof  here  that  the  acknowledg 
ment  was  taken  by  a  deputy ;  and  yet  he  has 
signed  to  it  the  name  of  his  principal.  J  do  not 
deny  that  if  he  were  authorized  to  acknowledge 
instruments  of  that  class,  and  in  doing  so  had 
used  his  own  name  instead  of  his  principal's,  it 
might  have  been  legal  enough ;  but  it  seems  to 
me  beyond  question,  that,  under  no  circum 
stances  whatever  could  he  certify  with  the  name 
of  his  principal  to  the  knowledge  of  that  princi 
pal  !  Certainly,  your  Honor,  no  rule  of  law 
can  authorize  one  man  to  certify  to  another's 
knowledge  I  There  is  no  question  here  as  to 
the  maxim  referred  to  by  your  Honor,  that 
•what  one  does  by  another  he  does  by  himself; 
but  can  it  be  said  that  what  one  knows  by 
another,  he  knows  by  himself  ?  And  if  not, 
how  could  this  deputy  certify  that  his  principal 
knew  the  persons  named  in  this  paper  to  be  the 
identical  persons  alleged  ?  And,  Gentlemen, 
if  the  Court  shall  thus  hold,  as  it  seems  to  me 
it  certainly  must,  then,  of  course,  the  prosecu 
tion  must  utterly  fail.  For  although  Mr.  Coch- 
ran  testifies  on  this  trial  that  he  came  in  to  his 
office  just  as  Bacon,  Mitchell,  and  Loyd  were 
passing  out,  having  finished  the  acknowledg 
ment,  and  that  they  showed  him  the  paper,  and 
he  said  he  would  have  an  addition  made  to  it, 
and  so  took  it  back  to  the  deputy  and  had  him 
add  two  lines  in  his  presence,  —  yet  there  is  no 
pretence  that  this  was  any  re-acknowledgment ; 
and  it  is  not  denied  that  the  acknowledgment 
had  been  fully  made  before  Mr.  Cochran  came 
in  ;  and  this  addition  was  only  an  amendment 
to  the  deputy's  certificate.  The  acknowledg 
ment  is  alleged  to  have  been  made  before 
.Cochran ;  and  on  the  former  trial  he  swore 
positively  that  the  acknowledgment  was  not 
made  before  him,  and  that  he  had  no  other  cer 
tain  knowledge  that  it  was  ever  made,  than  the 
recognition  of  the  handwriting  of  his  deputy 
furnished  him.  But  if  the  Court  hold  the 
acknowledgment  legal,  the  next  question  is,  by 
whom  was  this  arrest  made,  and  from  whose 
custody  was  John  rescued  ?  The  District- At 
torney  has  claimed  that  it  makes  no  dhTerence 


whether  the  arrest  was  made  by  the  Marshal  or 
by  the  agent.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  on  this 
point  he  has  misconceived  the  law.  For  it  is 
one  matter  whether  the  Fugitive  is  arrested 
without  process  by  the  agent  or  his  servants,  in 
which  case  the  custody  is  in  the  agent  only ; 
and  (juite  another  matter  when  he  is  arrested 
by  virtue  of  a  warrant,  issued  by  a  United 
States  Commissioner  or  Court,  in  which  latter 
case  the  custody  is  in  the  officer  under  the  war 
rant,  by  the  terms  of  which  he  cannot  deliver 
him  up  to  any  person  whatsoever  until  he  is  re 
turned  before  the  commissioner  by  whom  the 
warrant  was  issued.  The  marshal  is  com 
manded  by  the  commissioner  to  bring  the  al 
leged  slave  before  him  for  trial.  And  these 
cases  are,  therefore,  infinitely  wide  apart.  If 
however  the  marshal  is  the  mere  servant  of  the 
agent,  it  is  true,  as  the  District- Attorney  has 
said,  that  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the 
agent  is  at  Columbus  or  at  Oberlin.  But  it  is 
a  different  matter  if  the  marshal  acts  under  the 
warrant  in  his  official  capacity.  And  I  claim, 
therefore,  that  if  the  arrest  be  made  by  the 
marshal,  under,  by  virtue  of,  and  in  obedience 
to  the  warrant  of  the  commissioner  or  court,  he 
cannot  part  with  the  custody  of  the  person  ar 
rested,  without  showing  contempt  of  that  officer's 
mandate,  and  violating  his  official  duty.  For 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  commissioner  in  these  cases 
is  precisely  that  of  a  district  or  circuit  judge. 
And  would  your  Honor  say,  that  if  your  Honor 
had  issued  a  warrant  for  the  apprehension  of  a 
person,  that  warrant  being  in  the  usual  form,  and 
commanding  the  return  of  the  person  to  be  ap 
prehended  before  your  Honor,  to  answer  to  the 
complaint  of  the  person  who  sued  out  the  warrant ; 
will  your  Honor  say  that  the  officer  could  make 
the  arrest  and  then  deliver  the  person  out  of  and 
away  from  his  own  custody  into  the  hands  of 
some  other  person,  before  he  had  returned  him 
before  your  Honor,  as  the  warrant  commanded, 
without  disobeying  the  precept  of  the  warrant, 
and  treating  with  contempt  the  authority  under 
which  he  made  the  arrest  ?  Is  an  agent 
thus  authorized  to  override  all  courts  and  pro 
cesses  ?  Will  your  Honor  so  rule  V  Unless  your 
Honor  does,  which  of  course  we"  cannot  beJieve 
you  will ;  then,  since,  according  to  Mr.  Lowe's 
own  testimony,  he  made  the  arrest,  under  and 
by  virtue  of  the  warrant,  the  custody  was  in 
him,  and  could  not  be  alienated  by  him,  until 
the  boy  had  been  returned  before  the  commis 
sioner.  And  if  the  custody  was  in  him,  the 
rescue  was  from  him,  and  not  from  the  agent. 
But  this  defendant  is  charged  in  the  indictment 
with  rescuing  the  boy  from  the  agent,  —  the 
District-Attorney  has  totally  abandoned  the 
second  count  of  the  indictment,  —  and  the 
Court  will  tell  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 
that  unless  the  testimony  proves  the  indictment, 
the  defendant  must  be  discharged.  How,  then, 
can  you  find  this  defendant  guilty  ?  How  can 
you  avoid  acquitting  him,  if  you  must  find  the 
custody  in  the  agent  Jennings  ? 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


131 


But  I  understand  the  ingenious  District- 
Attorney  to  claim,  that  if  the  marshal  makes 
the  arrest  by  virtue  of  the  warrant,  while  the 
agent  is  an  hundred  miles  away,  the  agent  may 
at  any  time  intercept  the  marshal  before  he  has 
returned  his  prisoner  to  the  commissioner,  and 
overriding  the  authority  of  the  process,  take 
the  alleged  fugitive  into  his  own  custody ;  take 
him  wherever  he  pleases,  and  even  SKLL  him 
on  the  spot ! !  Will  your  Honor  so  hold  ?  And 
the  District- Attorney  claims  further,  that,  while 
the  fugitive  is  thus  held  by  the  agent,  whoever 
shall  advise  a  legal  inquiry  into  his  authority 
for  so  doing,  is  guilty  of  nothing  less  than 
TREASON  against  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  ! ! !  What  does  the  gentleman 
mean  ?  Does  he  soberly  claim  such  to  be  the 
law  ?  I  hope  your  Honor  will  not  fail  to  ob 
serve  the  gentleman's  position.  He  bases  his 
claim  on  the  ground  of  joint  custody ;  that  the 
agent  after  having  taken  control  of  the  pris 
oner,  takes  further  control  of  the  marshal,  re 
taining  him  as  his  assistant,  and  thus  invests 
himself  with  the  authority  of  the  United  States; 
and  the  marshal,  retaining  his  official  character 
and  functions,  thenceforth  has  with  him  a  joint 
control  of  the  person  of  the  prisoner,  though 
the  authority  of  the  agent  is  absolute ;  resist 
ance  to  either  is  resistance  to  both,  and  resist 
ance  to  them  is  "  LEVYING  WAR  AGAINST 
THE  UNITED  STATES."  Does  the  gentle 
man  propose  to  hang  my  client  ?  No  ;  he  says 
it  would  be  perfectly  proper,  but  unfortunately 
the  indictment  is  for  rescuing  under  the  Act  of 
1850,  and  not  for  treason.  But  if  resistance  or 
rescuing  a  fugitive  from  an  agent  was  Treason, 
I  fear  the  District- Attorney  would  be  no  better 
off,  for  the  custody  still  remains  with  the  mar 
shal.  If  the  marshal  have  any  power  under 
the  law,  he  must  retain  the  custody  of  the  per 
son  whom  he  has  apprehended  in  obedience  to 
a  warrant,  until  the  officer  issuing  the  warrant 
so  commands  him.  But  how  can  the  custody 
be  said  to  be  joint?  If  the  marshal  act  under 
the  law,  then  the  fugitive  is  in  the  custody  of 
the  law,  and  that  custody  is  exclusive.  But, 
again,  this  joint  custody  is  not  alleged  in  the 
indictment.  The  charge  is,  that  the  alleged 
fugitive  was  in  the  custody  of  Jennings,  assisted 
by  Lowe.  And  this  new  claim  of  joint  custody 
is  something  different  from  the  allegations  in 
the  indictment.  It  is  a  variance  to  claim  that 
the  custody  was  joint.  We  are  called  on  to 
answer  for  rescuing  a  person  alleged  to  be  a 
slave,  from  the  custody  of  one  Anderson  Jen 
nings,  the  agent  of  Bacon,  and  not  from  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  a  Deputy  United  States  Marshal. 
What  relevance,  then,  has  the  decision  quoted 
at  such  length  by  the  District- Attorney  with  ref 
erence  to  resisting  the  process  of  the  United 
States  in  the  hands  of  a  marshal  ?  Does  he 
seriously  cla'm  that  the  custody  of  an  agent 
stands  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  custody 
of  a  marshal?  If  he  does,  I  should  like  to 
have  him  cite  authorities  to  that  effect!  But 


the  gentleman  would  not  for  one  moment  claim 
that  the  custody  of  an  agent  could  not  be 
inquired  into ! 

I  desire  now  to  call  your  attention,  Gentle 
men  of  the  Jury,  to  the  inquiry  as  to  the  cus 
tody  of  the  alleged  fugitive,  by  whom  he  was 
held.  Let  us  first  look  at  the  serious  contradic 
tions  and  differences  that  exist  between  the 
leading  witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  Govern 
ment,  as  to  the  facts  of  the  arrest  and  cus 
tody. 

Lowe  swears  that  he  made  the  arrest,  but 
the  District-Attorney  urged,  and  Davis  and 
Mitchell  both  swear  that  they  made  the  arrest,  and 
that  Lowe  sat  and  had  the  horses ;  and  so  the 
District- Attorney  avows  flatly  that  "  Lowe  had 
nothing  to  do  icith  it"  Now,  doubtless,  Mr. 
Lowe  is  incorrect;  and  verily,  the  District- At 
torney  cannot  be  mistaken ! 

Again,  Lowe  says  that  he  gave  up  his  custody 
to  Jennings,  soon  after  they  arrived  at  Welling 
ton.  But  no  one  supports  him.  Jennings  says 
he  "  supposed  that  he  had  the  control  of  the 
nigger  all  the  time ; "  "  but  if  there  was  any 
custody  in  Lowe,  he  probably  gave  it  up 
when  he,  Jennings,  joined  him."  But  neither 
Davis  nor  Mitchell  know  any  thing  about  it; 
they  neither  saw  nor  heard  of  any  surrender  of 
authority  or  change  of  custody,  and  pretend 
not  to  have  had  any  clear  idea 'of  what  author 
ity  their  superiors  were  claiming  to  act  under  ; 
they  contented  themselves  with  obeying  orders. 
All  they  can  say  about  the  authority  or  the  cus 
tody  is,  that  they  think  —  they  won't  swear  posi 
tively —  that  the  power  of  attorney  was  shown 
to  Ilowk,  Patton,  Dickson,  and  Bennett.  But 
here  they  are  contradicted,  point  blank,  by 
every  one  of  these  men,  who  all  swear  positive 
ly  and  explicitly  that  not  one  word  was  said 
about  a  power  of  attorney,  or  a  solitary  refer 
ence  made  to  it,  except  that  it  was  handed  at 
one  time  to  Esquire  Bennett,  in  a  way  that  led 
him  to  believe  it  was  shown  simply  as  the  basis 
of  the  warrant :  —  which  was  undoubtedly  the 
case,  since  it  is  the  only  hypothesis  consistent 
with  the  whole  course  of  the  transaction.  And 
whereas  the  witnesses  for  the  Government  deal 
altogether  in  vague  generalities,  and  probabili 
ties,  and  suppositions,  and  beliefs,  any  of  which 
they  will  swear  positively  to  when  it  seems  nec 
essary  to  make  a  point,  reckless  of  absurdity, 
or  mutual,  or  even  self-contradiction,  the  wit 
nesses  for  the  defence  impeach  them  boldly,  un 
qualifiedly,  definitely ;  and  in  a  frank,  candid, 
reasonable,  straightforward  way,  that  irresisti 
bly  challenges  confidence.  In  the  midst  of 
these  conflicting  statements,  you  are  left  to 
make  your  own  decision.  I  do  not  stand  here 
to  question  or  deny  that  there  was  a  rescue  un 
der  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1850,  jWWtffetf 
the  power  of  attorney  was  valid,  the  arrest  le 
gal,  and  the  custody  as  charged  in  the  indict 
ment;  but  I  do  claim,  and  I  am  justified  by  (,he 
testimony  in  claiming,  that  no  authority  for  hold 
ing  John  was  shown  or  mentioned,  except  the 


132 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


warrant ;  that  no  one  but  Lowe  pretended  to 
have  him  in  custody,  and  that  the  actual  custo 
dy  was  in,  and  the  rescue  was  from  Lowe,  act 
ing  as  a  Deputy  U.  States  Marshal,  and  not  from 
Anderson  Jennings,  as  charged  in  the  indict 
ment.  The  only  witnesses  upon  whom  the  Gov 
ernment  relies  to  establish  the  custody  are  Lowe 
and  Jennings  themselves.  But  Lowe  and  Jen 
nings  are  contradicted  in  almost  every  material 
statement  by  Howie,  Dickson,  Patton,  Bennett, 
and  Cowles.  Take  their  statement  as  to  what 
occurred  in  the  interview  with  Dickson.  They 
sent  for  Dickson  to  consult  with,  as  a  legal 
adviser,  and,  of  course,  as  they  claim,  made 
known  to  him  the  authority  under  which  they 
were  acting.  They  pretend  that  the  power  of 
attorney  was  shown,  and  that  Jennings  was 
the  chief  actor.  But  Dickson  swears  positively 
that  nothing  whatever  was  said  about  any  power 
of  attorney ;  that  Lowe  was  the  principal ;  that 
he  showed  the  warrant,  and  claimed  that  he,  as 
United  States  Deputy  Marshal,  had  arrested, 
and  then  held  the  alleged  fugitive  under  said 
warrant. 

Again,  look  at  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  reading  of  the  warrant  by  Lowe,  in 
front  of  the  building.  Lowe  swears  he  had 
both  the  power  of  attorney  and  the  warrant ; 
that  one  was  read,  he  don't  remember  which ;  that 
the  reading  of  the  other  was  commenced;  that 
when  the  arrest  was  made,  he  seized  the  paper 
out  of  Patton's  hands,  and  hurried  back  into  the 
hotel.  But  Patton,  Howk,  and  Cowles  contra 
dict  and  impeach  him  in  the  most  positive  man 
ner. 

These  witnesses  are  intelligent,  they  testify  in 
a  fair  and  candid  manner,  and  there  is  nothing 
to  impeach  their  truthfulness.  I  know  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney  is  severe  upon  Patton,  but  he 
can  say  nothing  against  Howk,  and  is  forced  to 
respect  Cowles,  and  I  feel  free  to  say  that  in 
point  of  intellect,  in  distinctness  of  recollection 
and  clearness  of  statement,  I  never  heard  Mr. 
Cowles  surpassed  upon  the  witness  stand.  He 
and  the  others  all  swear  that  the  warrant  alone 
was  read,  and  that  all  which  Mr.  Lowe  states 
as  to  the  power  of  attorney  is  absolutely  false. 
The  purpose  of  the  reading  was  to  notify  the 
crowd  of  the  authority  for  holding  the  alleged 
fugitive;  Cowles  and  Howk  were  desirous  of 
ascertaining  the  truth  of  the  matter.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  must  be  convincing  to  show  that 
the  custody  was  in  Lowe,  and  not  in  the  agent 
Jennings.  Jennings  is  no  more  to  be  relied 
upon  than  Lowe.  Why,  Jennings  swears  posi 
tively  that  he  saw  eight  or  ten,  and  he  thinks 
fifteen  men  come  in  at  that "  attic  window,"  and 
he  swears  to  it  over  and  over  again,  yet  every 
other  witness,  including  Lowe,  Mitchell,  and 
Davis  swears  that  not  a  soul  entered  at  the  win 
dow.  So  as  to  the  number  of  the  crowd  and 
armed  men  he  is  equally  at  fault.  I  have  no 
doubt  Jennings  imagined  he  saw  legions,  and 
that  to  his  excited  fears  a  shadow  was  an  armed 
man.  Seeing  sights  that  never  happened,  hear 


ing  sounds  that  were  never  made,  he  the  chief 
witness  of  the  prosecution  stands  before  you 
self-impeached. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  the  government 
have  failed  to  establish  the  custody  in  Jennings, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  abundantly 
proved  it  to  have  been  in  the  marshal  under 
the  warrant. 

I  have  briefly  adverted  to  these  legal  points, 
and  the  testimony  bearing  upon  them  as  they 
will  be  fully  discussed  by  my  learned  associate. 
But  I  feel  authorized  in  saying  that  if  the  Court 
shall  charge  you  as  we  claim,  as  to  the  custody 
of  the  fugitive,  you  cannot  hesitate  for  a  mo 
ment  in  finding  that  he  was  held  by  the  marshal 
and  not  by  the  agent,  and  that  the  defendant  is 
clearly  entitled  to  an  acquittal. 

But  if  we  are  wrong  in  our  view  of  the  law, 
if  the  power  of  attorney  was  legal,  if  the  custody 
could  be  joint,  we  then  come  to  the  farther  in 
quiry,  whether  this  defendant  was  in  any  man 
ner  identified  with  the  rescue  of  John.  Is  this 
charge  of  the  indictment  sustained  by  the  proof? 
and  it  is  upon  this  part  of  the  case  I  propose 
chiefly  to  direct  your  attention. 

I  propose  to  show  from  the  testimony,  that 
there  is  no  proof  that  this  defendant,  Charles 
Langston,  was  in  any  way  identified  with  the 
crowd  who  effected  the  rescue  at  Wellington, 
so  as  to  become  responsible  in  the  eye  of  the 
law,  cither  as  actively  or  passively  a  participant 
in  its  acts.  And  in  order  to  enter  upon  this  in 
vestigation,  I  lay  aside  for  the  time  being  all 
questions  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  custody 
and  the  guilt  of  the  parties  efFceting  the  rescue. 
Assuming  that  the  custody  was  legal,  and  the 
rescue  criminal,  I  propose  to  set  my  client  be 
fore  you  in  such  a  light,  by  the  testimony  alone, 
that  your  oaths  will  not  only  warrant,  but  re 
quire  of  you  his  acquittal.  It  is  claimed  by  the 
prosecution,  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  crowd, 
came  there  for  an  unlawful  purpose,  and  acted, 
no  matter  how  quietly,  with  the  unlawful  crowd, 
and  is  therefore  guilty.  The  fundamental  prin 
ciple  of  common  law,  that  a  man  must  be  held 
to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proven  to  be  guilty, 
seems  to  be  reversed  by  the  District- Attorney. 
He  starts  out  with  the  presumption  that  the  de 
fendant  is  of  course  guilty,  and  in  the  light  of 
this  assumption  he  goes  at  work  to  set  forth  por 
tions  of  the  testimony  bearing  against  the  de 
fendant,  in  the  strongest  possible  colors,  and  en 
deavors,  if  possible,  to  reconcile  that  in  his  fa 
vor,  with  this  hypothesis  of  guilt. 

But  you,  Gentlemen,  I  trust,  will  not  be  mis 
led  by  such  logic.  You  will  remember  that  the 
law  guarantees  to  the  defendant  the  presump 
tion  of  innocence,  that  the  entire  burden  of 
the  proof  is  upon  the  prosecution,  and  that  to 
proceed  in  this  investigation  with  an  assumption 
that  the  defendant  is,  or  may  be,  guilty,  is  to  re 
verse  the  law,  and  disregard  his  dearest  rights. 
Not  only  is  the  defendant  entitled  to  the  pre 
sumption  of  innocence,  but  the  proof  must  not 
only  be  consistent  with,  and  establish  the  guilt, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


133 


but  it  must  be  so  strong  as  to  exclude  the  pos 
sibility  of  innocence,  before  you  should  find  him 
guilty.  Jf  any  act  or  deed  of  his  is  consistent 
with  either  guilt  or  innocence,  you  are  bound  to 
presume  against  the  guilt.  Again,  the  proof 
must  not  be  a  mere  preponderance  of  probabil 
ity  against  probability,  as  to  the  question  of 
guilt,  but  must  amount  to  such  certainty  that 
not  a  reasonable  doubt  can  remain ;  and  so  long 
as  a  reasonable  doubt  may  remain,  the  defend 
ant  must  be  acquitted.  It  is  not  optional  with 
the  jury.  This  is  the  law,  as  the  Court  will  lay 
it  down  for  your  guidance.  And,  as  I  have  no 
doubt  you  will  be  governed  by  it,  I  am  con 
fident  that  you  will  find  a  verdict  of  Not  Guilty. 
For,  starting  put,  as  we  are  bound  to  do,  with 
the  presumption  of  innocence,  it  seems  to  me 
there  can  nothing  be  found  in  the  proof  to 
change  this  presumption.  And  I  feel  confi- 
dent'that,  were  the  defendant  accused  with 
any  other  charge,  and  were  the  testimony  no 
stronger  against  him,  you,  Gentlemen,  would 
not  leave  your  seats,  to  pronounce  him  inno 
cent.  The  District- Attorney,  however,  would 
have  you  assume  that  the  gathering  at  Oberlin 
was  an  unlawful  gathering,  a  gathering  for  an 
unlawful  purpose ;  that  the  gathering  at  Wel 
lington,  or  at  least  300  of  the  persons  in  it,  were 
assembled  presumptively  for  a  like  unlawful 
purpose,  that  the  crowd  were  presumptively 
assured  and  notified  that  John  was  a  slave,  and 
in  the  custody  of  Jennings ;  and  that  this 
defendant,  being  in  some  part  of  the  whole 
crowd  of  500,  was,  necessarily,  one  of  those 
seeking  to  effect  a  rescue,  and  presumptively 
active  in  the  use  of  unlawful  means  ! 

Now  was  there  ever  before  such  a  perversion 
of  law  witnessed  in  a  court  of  justice  V  Is  that 
the  way  in  which  the  Federal  Government 
would  have  its  prosecuting  attorneys  attack 
every  man  suspected  of  crime  ?  Why,  Gen 
tlemen  of  the  Jury,  1  venture  to  say  that  this 
gentleman  himself  never  took  such  a  position 
before,  and  that  he  cannot  seriously  intend  it 
now.  But  how  are  these  things  when  viewed 
in  the  light  of  the  testimony  before  you  ? 

The  report  went  out  at  Oberlin,  that  a  man 
had  been  unlawfully  seized  and  carried  off  by 
persons  who  were  identified  as  those  that  had 
oeen  skulking  in  close  hiding-places,  or  abroad 
under  cover  of  night,  evidently  enough  with  no 
honest  purpose  in  view,  for  some  days  or  weeks 
previous.  No  combination  of  circumstances 
could  warrant  stronger  suspicions  that  a  foul 
deed,  and  not  a  lawful  one,  had  been  commit 
ted.  The  people  hastily  ran  together,  and, 
being  able  to  learn  nothing  more  than  the  fact 
of  the  abduction,  and  that  the  seizure  had  been 
made  through  the  vilest  deceit,  and  the  parties 
had  been  met  hurrying  toward  Wellington,  set 
off  thither  at  once,  without  consultation  or 
concert,  other  than  the  spontaneous  unanimity 
of  the  desire  to  ascertain  the  facts,  and,  if  not 
too  late,  prevent  an  outrage.  Surely  nothing 
could  be  more  honorable  to  the  people  of  a  vir-  I 


tuous  community,  than  such  a  response  to  such 
tidings.  But  the  skilful  District- Attorney  would 
be  glad  to  dodge  all  this,  if  he  could,  by  urging 
that  the  people  of  Oberlin  are  fanatics,  and 
call  any  seizure  of  a  colored  man,  "  kidnap 
ping."  But,  unfortunately,  the  witnesses  unan 
imously  disagree  with  him.  They  none  of  them 
know  of  the  phrase  "  kidnapping "  being  ap 
plied  in  Oberlin,  more  than  elsewhere,  to  the 
seizure  of  a  man  according  to  any  law.  What 
right,  then,  has  the  District-Attorney  to  claim 
to  you  that,  because  such  an  alarm  induced  a 
man  to  travel  nine  miles, —  that  an  inhabitant 
of  Oberlin  should  travel  nine  miles  upon  any 
alarm,  he  intimates  is  proof  presumptive  of  a 
guilty  purpose !  —  to  look  after  a  man's  liberty, 
which  is  much  dearer  to  any  man  than  life,  he 
may  be  safely  presumed  to  have  gone  about  the 
inquiry  with  no  good  intent!  And  yet  the 
gentleman  does  gravely  urge  all  this  !  When 
an  Oberlinite  drives  out  of  town  nine  miles  on 
an  ostensibly  benevolent  mission,  you  may  be 
sure  he  has  mischief  in  his  heart !  This  the 
gentleman  urges  with  no  little  assurance,  as  a 
self-evident  proposition ;  and  thereupon  the 
gentleman  indulged  himself  in  an  harangue 
against  Oberlin  generally. 

It  is  worthy  of  your  notice,  Gentlemen  of 
the  Jury,  that  this  defendant  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  at  any  time  in  the  crowd  at  Ober 
lin,  before  their  departure  to  Wellington.  Nor 
does  it  appear  that  the  defendant  is  a  resident 
of  Oberlin ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  shown  he 
was  only  there  on  a  visit ;  that  he  was  a  fellow- 
citizen  of  Marshal  Lowe ;  that  he  has  resided 
in  Columbus,  and  is  now  an  inhabitant  of 
Cleveland.  I  suggest,  therefore,  to  the  District- 
Attorney,  that  his  diatribe  upon  Oberlin  was 
entirely  uncalled  for  and  out  of  place.  The 
gentleman's  denunciations  of  the  unlawful 
gathering  at  Oberlin  fall  harmless  at  the  feet 
of  my  client.  It  does  not  even  appear  that  the 
defendant  went  from  Oberlin  to  Wellington. 
He  was  first  seen  at  Wellington,  and  when  or 
how  he  came  there,  we  are  not  informed.  And 
were  it  shown  that  he  went  from  Oberlin, 
which  it  is  not  —  it  should  still  be  remembered 
that  as  there  were  a  number  who  went  thus 
from  Oberlin,  with  no  purpose  to  assist  in  the 
rescue,  although  with  more  or  less  interest  in, 
and  sympathy  for  John,  this  man  has  the  same 
claim  that  they  have  upon  the  presumption  of 
the  law  that  his  purpose  was  no  guilty  one,  un 
til  it  is  so  distinctly  proven. 

And  as  to  the  excitement  of  the  crowd,  con 
cerning  which  so  much  is  said,  it  will  be  Avell 
for  you  to  call  to  mind  the  testimony  of  the  wit 
ness  Wood,  who,  although  taking  great  care  to 
make  all  he  could  for  the  government,  thought 
lessly  allowed  it  to  leak  out  how  the  excitement 
was  kept  up ;  that  he  and  others  like  himself 
were  there,  not  to  participate  in  the  rescue,  but 
to  have  "fun  generally"  and  that  they  had  it 
by  raising  such  cries  as,  "  Here  he  goes ! " 
"  This  way,"  "  Look  out,  there, '  and  so  kept 


134 


HISTORY  OF   THE 


the  crowd  rushing  from  one  place  to  another 
with  much  noise  and  confusion.  So,  therefore, 
it  is  shown  a  man  might  go  from  Oberlin,  min 
gle  with  the  crowd,  aid  in  keeping  up  the  ex 
citement,  and  still  have  no  part  in  the  rescue. 
But  the  District-Attorney  claims  that  going 
there  and  remaining,  no  matter  how  short  a 
time,  in  the  crowd,  was  clearly  unlawful,  and 
that,  having  once  entered  upon  an  unlawful  un 
dertaking,  the  defendant  could  not  abandon  it. 
I  have  simply  to  say,  that  no  authority  is  shown 
to  sustain  so  absurd  or  monstrous  a  doctrine. 
But  whether  law  or  not,  it  has  no  application  to 
this  defendant.  The  point  for  the  government 
to  establish  is,  Did  he  entertain  any  guilty  pur 
pose  ?  That  he  went  from  Oberlin  is  no  proof 
of  such  intent.  Nor  is  it  proved  by  his  mere 
presence  in  the  crowd.  For  it  is  abundantly 
shown,  and  the  Government  admits,  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  crowd  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
rescuers,  and  that  numbers  went  from  Oberlin, 
were  there  from  first  to  last,  and  yet  took  no 
part  in  the  rescue,  nor  had  any  intention  of 
committing  any  unlawful  act,  and  cannot  be 
charged  with  any  unlawful  combination.  The 
mere  suspicion  of  the  District-Attorney  that 
this  defendant  was  there  to  commit  an  unlawful 
act,  I  am  sure  will  not  convince  you,  Gentle 
men,  that  was  the  fact.  The  District- Attorney 
is  forced  to  admit  that  the  conduct  of  the  de 
fendant  was  peaceful,  that  he  committed  no 
overt  act  of  violence ;  but  he  claims  the  defend 
ant  was  "  a  snake  in  the  grass,"  that,  in  a  secret 
and  underhanded  manner,  he  was  inciting  oth 
ers  to  violence,  and  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the  in 
stigators  of  the  whole  affair.  But,  in  my  view, 
Gentlemen,  there  is  no  proof  to  warrant  any 
such  conclusion ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  his  whole 
conduct,  so  far  as  the  testimony  shows,  instead 
of  contributing  to  the  excitement,  inciting  oth 
ers  to  perform  acts  of  violence,  he  was  counsel 
ing  peace  and  a  resort  to  legal  measures.  If 
such  be  the  result  of  your  convictions,  I  do  not 
doubt  he  will  receive  at  your  hands  an  honor 
able  acquittal. 

Were  this  an  ordinary  case,  and  had  it  been 
tried  in  an  ordinary  period,  I  should  not  longer 
detain  you.  But  it  is  something  like  three 
weeks  since  some  of  the  witnesses  testified,  and 
the  District- Attorney  has  so  confidently  claimed 
a  conviction  at  your  hands,  I  feel  it  my  duty 
somewhat  carefully  to  review  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  of  the  Government  bearing  upon 
the  conduct  of  the  defendant.  And  I  feel  con 
fident  that,  weighing  the  evidence  and  consid 
ering  the  facts  in  the  light  of  those  rules  of  law, 
to  the  benefit  of  which  every  man  is  entitled, 
you  cannot  but  agree  with  me  in  the  conclusion 
I  have  formed.  The  first  witness  was  Jen 
nings. 

Jennings  says,  Defendant  came  into  the  room 
and  talked  with  Lowe;  —  I  have  taken  great 
pains  to  give  this  testimony  accurately.  Lowe 
asked  him  to  assist  him.  He  refused,  and  said 
we  might  as  well  give  him  up,  for  "  we  are  de 


termined  to  have  him  any  way."  On  cross- 
examination,  the  same  witness  says  the  defend 
ant  said,  "  for  they  are  determined  to  have  him." 
You  all  recollect  the  difficulty  we  had  with  this 
witness  in  fastening  him  to  any  tolerable  degree 
of  accuracy  in  his  statements,  and  that,  in  his 
grammar,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  first  per 
son. 

Mr.  Lowe  stated  that  while  he  was  talking 
with  Langston  the  train  passed  Wellington. 
That  this  was  their  first  interview.  And  by 
other  witnesses  it  was  ascertained  that  the  train 
passed  at  5:13,  p.  M.  Lowe  further  says  that  he, 
seeing  Langston  in  the  crowd,  and  having  known 
him  well  at  Columbus  as  a  prudent,  discreet,  and 
well-disposed  person,  sent  for  him  to  come  up, 
believing  he  could  be  persuaded  to  intercede 
with  the  crowd  to  regard  the  law  and  disperse. 
There  is  no  proof  that  Langston  was  in  this 
room  —  the  room  where  John  was  —  with 
Lowe  either  before  or  after  this  interview, 
during  which  the  train  passed.  It  is  proved 
that  he  was  in  that  room  only  then.  And  that 
when  any  one  testifies  that  he  thinks  he  was 
seen  going  up  and  down  that  house  at  other 
times,  such  testimony  is  altogether  unsupported. 
And  Jennings  would  be  least  of  all  reliable 
upon  such  a  point.  He  has  been  proved  to  have 
made  already  too  many  glaring  mistakes  and 
exaggerations.  In  the  matter  of  the  language 
Langston  used,  for  instance,  he  shows  well 
enough  to  you  that  he  is  utterly  unable  to  state 
any  material  point  with  accuracy  and  certainty. 
At  what  time  this  talk  was  he  is  n't  able  to 
tell  you,  but  thinks  it  was  but  a  short  time 
before  the  rescue,  not  more  than  half  an  hour 
or  so  ;  while  Lowe  swears  positively  that  it  was 
while  the  train  was  passing,  an  hour  and  a  hah0 
or  two  hours  before.  So  he  tries  to  locate  it 
upon  Langston  at  a  time  and  place  when  Lang 
ston  could  not  have  been  there  at  all,  and  when 
Lowe  himself  swears  he  was  not  there.  So  that 
in  all  this  confused  and  worthless  testimony  of 
Jennings,  there  is  nothing  to  implicate  Langston 
at  all.  Again,  Lowe,  who  knew  Langston 
well,  swears  he  did  n't  come  into  the  room  at 
the  time  of  the  rescue ;  others  swear  positively 
that  no  one  came  in ;  and  yet  Jennings  is  quite 
sure  he  saw  Langston  come  in  !  Doubtless  he 
was  one  of  the  immortal  fifteen  that  came  in 
through  that  window!  What  confidence  can 
any  one  place  in  such  a  witness  ?  He  soberly 
believes,  he  tells  us,  that  ten  or  fifteen  came  in 
through  that  attic  window,  when  the  ladder 
was  put  up  •  and  every  other  witness  from  out 
side  and  inside  swears  positively  that  no  one 
went  in  at  that  window.  And  so  he  thinks  a 
crowd  came  in  at  the  door,  —  and  I  believe 
Mitchell  does  too,  —  and  hustled  John  out, 
while  Lowe  and  all  the  rest  say  they  saw  no 
one  come  in ;  but  that  the  two  or  three  who 
were  in  the  room  all  the  time  went  out  with 
him  1  That  "  lick  "  on  the  head  seems  to  have 
very  dangerously  affected  his  optic  nerves  ! 

Mitchell  says  Langston  was  there ,  thinks  he 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


135 


•was  there  more  than  once ;  is  n't  certain  about 
it,  and  can't  tell  any  thing  that  was  said. 

Wack  saw  Langston  about  in  the  crowd,  but 
doesn't  remember  any  thing  that  he  (Lang 
ston)  did.  He  was  acquainted  with  Langston  ; 
testifies  to  the  detail  of  what  was  said  and  done 
by  others,  but  can  remember  nothing  that 
Langston  said  or  did,  and  is  quite  unable  to 
charge  him  with  doing  any  thing  to  favor  the 
rescue.  And  that  nothing  could  give  this  Mr. 
Wack  so  much  pleasure  as  to  testify  to  any 
thing  that  would  seem  to  implicate  any  of  these 
defendants,  we  all  knew  long  ago.  The  rela 
tion  which  he  sustains  to  the  people  of  Oberlin 
is  too  peculiar  to  allow  him  any  other  feeling. 
He  is  an  important  witness  for  the  Govern 
ment  ;  he  was  one  of  the  first  at  Wellington  ; 
was  there  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  ;  saw 
the  whole  transaction ;  knew  Langston  perfect 
ly  well ;  and  yet  even  he  dare  not  say  that  he 
saw  any  thing  in  his  conduct  that  would  impli 
cate  him  with  the  rescuing  part  of  the  crowd. 
A  willing  witness  for  the  Government  —  none 
could  be  more  willing  —  saw  Langston  often 
through  the  afternoon,  —  watched  him  closely, 
—  and  cannot  lisp  a  syllable  against  him !  Is  n't 
there  something  significant  in  such  a  state  of 
things,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  V  And  Mr. 
Wack  says,  as  all  the  others  do,  that  the  crowd 
was  a  very  promiscuous  one,  made  up  of  all 
extremes  of  sympathies ;  that  there  was  no  con 
cert  of  action  even  among  the  rescuers,  but 
every  man  was  acting  for  himself. 

Wood  testifies  that  he  saw  Langston  some 
time  in  the  afternoon  sitting  on  a  box,  and  that 
accosting  him,  he  asked  him  how  things  were 
getting  along,  and  he  replied,  "  They  've  turned 
out  well."  Then  witness  told  defendant  that 
"  there  were  papers  got  out  for  the  Southern 
ers,  but  the  constable  would  not  serve  them 
without  indemnity  bonds,"  to  which  Langston 
replied  that  "  they  would  have  him  any  way." 
Now  who  did  he  mean  by  him  ?  John  the  ne 
gro,  about  whom  nothing  had  been  said,  or 
Lowe  the  Marshal  for  whose  arrest  the  warrant 
had  been  issued  V  It  is  for  you  to  infer,  Gen 
tlemen  ;  and  you  will  say  that  the  latter  infer 
ence  is  the  only  natural  one.  Nothing  could 
be  more  violent  than  the  other. 

And  now  I  understand  the  District- Attorney 
to  claim,  that,  if  a  person  learning  that  some 
one  has  been  arrested  and  seized  in  a  suspicious 
manner,  and  so  firmly  believing  that  the  seiz 
ure  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  State  as  well 
as  unauthorized  by  any  law  whatever,  as  to  be 
ready  to  affirm  such  belief  upon  oath,  calls  for 
or  advises  to  a  legal  inquiry  into  the  facts  of  the 
seizure,  by  state  process,  before  a  state  magis 
trate,  no  matter  who  the  magistrate  be  or  how 
suspicious  the  circumstances  of  the  arrest,  if  the 
claimant  professes  to  act  under  United  States 
authority, —  such  call  for  or  advisement  of  such 
legal  inquiry  by  such  State  Tribunal  is  nothing 
short  of  TREASON,  being  constructively  levy 
ing  war  against  the  United  States  ! ! !  This  is 


not  for  you  to  decide  upon  as  jurors,  but  for  the 
Court.  But  it  must  go  to  you,  Gentlemen,  to 
show  you  to  what  straits  the  prosecution  are 
driven !  And,  your  Honor,  if  that  has  come 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Courts,  I  apprehend 
that  it  is  something  totally  new  in  law.  For  it 
is  not  claimed  that  the  boy  was  in  the  custody  of 
the  Marshal,  but  the  charge  of  the  indictment 
is  that  he  was  in  the  custody  of  Jennings  as 
agent,  and  of  Lowe  as  his  assistant.  Not  in  the 
custody  of  Lowe  as  marshal.  And  if  for  call 
ing  for  the  legal  investigation  of  such  a  custody, 
a  man  is  to  be  held  guilty  of  Treason,  I  under 
take  to  say  that  it  is  worse  than  any  construc 
tive  Treason  that  was  ever  known  in  the  dark 
est  ages  of  English  tyranny.  I  will  not  argue 
so  monstrous  a  proposition,  but  leave  it  for  you 
to  decide,  Gentlemen  'of  the  Jury,  so  for  as  it 
is  for  you  to  pass  upon  it,  under  what  I  am  sure 
must  be  the  instructions  of  the  Court. 

Wood  further  says  that  he  saw  Langston 
near  the  back  door  shortly  before  the  rush  was 
made,  but  that  he  was  neither  saying  or  doing 
any  thing,  and  can't  say  whether  Langston 
went  in  or  not.  Now  Wood  is  evidently  mis 
taken  as  to  the  time  he  saw  Langston,  if  he 
saw  him  at  all,  in  the  crowd  who  were  trying 
to  enter.  Now  the  rush  was  made  while  Lowe 
was  reading  the  warrant.  When  Lowe  came 
down  with  Patton  and  Meacham  to  read  the 
warrant  they  passed  out  at  this  back  door. 
But  Wood,  you  remember,  saw  nothing  of  that 
transaction,  neither  Lowe's  coming  down  nor 
the  reading.  It  is  clear  he  must  have  been  ab 
sent  at  the  time  of  the  rush,  or  at  least  for  some 
time  previous  thereto.  Again,  Ilowk  and  Ben 
nett  both  saw  Langston  about  the  time  Lowe 
came  down,  and  he  was  then  in  front  of  the 
Hotel,  so  that  Wood  cannot  be  correct  as  to 
the  time.  He  undoubtedly  saw  Langston,  for 
he  was  perfectly  ubiquitous  on  that  occasion ; 
but  even  Wood  can  lay  nothing  to  Langston's 
charge.  For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  logic 
of  the  prosecution,  let  us  suppose  that  this  fel 
low  Wood  was  on  trial  instead  of  my  client  —  I 
am  doing  injustice  to  my  client,  I  know,  by 
supposing  that  such  a  man  as  this  Wood  capa 
ble  of  filling  his  place  for  a  moment  —  but  grant 
the  supposition  for  the  sake  of  the  argument 
In  the  first  place,  if  arraigned  here,  he  certainly 
would  n't  have  much  to  brag  of  in  the  way  of 
color.  And  I  speak  of  this,  because  in  the  eyes 
of  the  District- Attorney  the  fact  that  a  colored 
man, —  no  matter  if,  as  in  the  case  of  my  client, 
the  tinge  in  his  skin  is  scarcely  perceptible, — 
was  in  the  crowd  at  Wellington,  is  proof  con 
clusive  that  he  was  there  with  an  unlawful  pur 
pose.  But  it  is  not  claimed  that  Wood  went 
there  with  any  unlawful  purpose, —  the  very 
contrary  is  boldly  asserted.  And  yet  this  man 
Wood  went  to  Wellington  in  great  haste  — 
among  the  very  first  —  swears  he  was  greatly 
excited,  —  cannot  give  any  good  reason  for 
going,  —  bustled  about  there  wonderfully,  — 
spoke  to  John  on  the  platform,  —  made  more 


136 


HISTORY    OF   THE 


noise  than  any  other  man  in  the  crowd,  —  at 
the  time  the  rush  was  made  and  John  rescued, 
ran  across  the  road  for  another  ladder  after 
one  had  been  forcibly  thrown  down,  —  says  it 
was  a  very  heavy  one,  but  it  seemed  light  be 
cause  he  was  very  much  excited,  —  set  it  up 
against  the  balcony  and  sprang  on  to  go  up,  — 
a  man,  pointing  his  pistol,  threatened  to  shoot 
him  dead  if  he  did  n't  stop,  —  told  him  to  shoot 

and  be  d d,  —  rushed  right  on  up,  —  and 

so  on  all  the  afternoon ;  helping  the  crowd 
and  intensifying  the  excitement  by  every 
means  in  his  power ;  and  yet  he  swears  here 
himself  that  he  knew  all  the  time  that  John 
was  a  slave,  and  wanted  to  go  back  to  his  mas 
ter  ;  for  John  had  worked  a  good  deal  for  him 
and  told  him  all  about  it ! 

And  now  I  ask,  if  this  man  Wood  was  on 
trial  at  the  bar,  charged  with  participating  in 
that  rescue,  would  not  an  infinitely  stronger 
case  be  made  out  against  him  than  against  the 
defendant  V  Could  not  the  District- Attorney 
triumphantly  claim  that  Wood  was  a  man  of 
color,  —  that  he  resides  in  Oberlin,  that  he 
went  nine  miles  to  look  after  &  fellow-citizen, 
that  he  mingled  with  the  unlawful  crowd  both 
at  Oberlin  and  Wellington,  that  he  moved 
about  in  the  crowd,  contributed  to  the  excite 
ment  and  helped  in  the  rescue,  well  knowing 
that  John  was  a  fugitive  and  held  in  lawful 
custody  V  It  is  clear,  however,  that  Wood  took 
no  part,  either  in  thought  or  deed  in  the  res 
cue.  His  despicable  brain  conceived  no  such 
laudable  act  as  that.  I  state  the  case  simply  to 
show  that  all  the  acts  which  the  District- Attor 
ney  claims  as  proving  guilt,  are  consistent  with 
perfect  innocence  of  the  charge  in  the  indict 
ment. 

The  next  witness  was  Wheeler.  He  says  he 
saw  Langston,  heard  him  advise  the  crowd  to 
keep  quiet  and  use  no  violence,  but  resort  to 
legal  measures,  and  that  the  only  legal  way  to 
release  John  was  to  obtain  a  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus.  And  so  impressed  was  Wheeler  with 
Langston's  conduct  that  he  says  he  testified  in 
the  former  trial  that  if  every  one  had  acted  like 
Langston  there  would  have  been  no  unlawful 
proceedings.  Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Court,  I 
shall  charge  you,  that  if  you  find  this  defendant 
in  thus  advising  a  legal  investigation  as  to  the 
custody  of  the  alleged  fugitive,  was  guilty  of  an 
unlawful  interference,  as  claimed  by  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney,  then,  indeed,  are  the  labors  of 
this  defence  at  an  end. 

But  no  authority  has  been  shown  for  such  a 
monstrous  doctrine,  and  I  have  no  fear  that 
such  will  be  the  instruction  given  you.  You 
are  to  look  at  this  conduct  of  the  defendant  as 
upon  his  other  acts,  for  the  purpose  of  deter 
mining  his  purposes,  and  whether  or  not  he  was 
identifying  himself  with  those  who  were  there 
for  an  'unlawful  object.  We  claim  that  this  con 
duct  of  the  defendant  shows  beyond  doubt  that 
he  was  in  no  manner  connected  with  the  un 
lawful  crowd,  nor  in  any  manner  identified  with 


them,  but  that  he  came  there  with  a  lawful 
purpose  and  sought,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  to 
cany  it  out.  Remember,  Gentlemen,  this  wit 
ness  is  one  on  the  part  of  the  Government  and, 
that  when  they  prove  his  peaceful  acts,  the  de 
fendant  should  have  the  whole  benefit  thereof. 

The  next  witness  was  Charles  Wadsworth. 
He  says  that  he  met  defendant  in  the  building 
up  stairs  and  asked  him  if  the  papers  were  afl 
right;  that  Langston  replied,  that  it  m.'de  no 
difference  whether  the  papers  were  right  or  not, 
that  they  were  bound  to  have  him  an}  way ; 
and  he  says  he  thinks  Langston  went  up  and 
down  stairs  three  or  four  times.  But  this  wit 
ness  says  he  left  when  the  train  came  in.  You 
will  remember  that  the  interview  between  Lowe 
and  Langston  occurred  while  the  train  \\;:,s  pass 
ing,  and  that  that  was  the  first  time  Langston 
went  into  the  hotel.  It  is  therefore  doubtful  if 
this  witness  saw  Langston  at  all,  but  if  he  did, 
what  does  the  expression  he  claims  to  have 
heard  prove  ?  He  does  not  state  whether  this 
was  a  determination  of  Langston's  or  simply  an 
expression  of  opinion  by  him  as  to  the  feelings 
of  the  crowd,  just  such  a  declaration  as  Lowe 
or  Jennings  or  Davis  or  Wheeler  might  have 
made  without  any  imputation.  Why  not  Lang 
ston  as  well  ?  Is  it  because  he  is  a  nigger  ? 
The  District- Attorney  does  n't  claim  that  Lang 
ston  was  openly  aiding  the  rescue,  but  was  "en 
gineering  it  from  behind."  Only  by  assuming 
the  defendant  is  guilty,  and  that  he  was  lying 
when  he  advised  resort  to  legal  measures.  Only 
by  misinterpreting  his  every  word  and  look  can 
you  by  possibility  find  him  guilty  of  any  par 
ticipation  in  the  rescue.  I  have  no  fear  that 
when  a  man's  conduct  appears  fair  and  honest, 
you  will  torture  it  into  lying  and  deceitfulness. 

Marks  saw  Langston*  at  Wellington,  but  al 
ways  found  him  quiet  and  still ;  neither  doing 
nor  saying  any  thing.  Now  Marks,  too,  is  an 
Oberlin  witness  for  the  Government,  —  knew 
Langston  well,  —  was  by  when  Wood  had  his 
conversation  with  Langston,  but  it  made  so  lit 
tle  impression  on  his  mind  that  he  cannot  tell 
any  thing  that  was  said.  He  came  with  Wood 
and  Wack,  among  the  first,  —  was  there  con 
stantly  till  the  rescue  was  over,  — saw  Langston 
frequently,  —  has  no  more  sympathy  for  niggers 
or  Republicans  than  Mr.  Wack  or  Mr.  Wood, 
—  and  yet  cannot  say  that  he  saw  any  thing  in 
Langston's  conduct  that  favored  the  rescue. 

Halbert  saw  Langston  at  Wellington,  and 
thinks  he  heard  him  talking  about  a  paper  to 
secure  the  constable.  He  understood  that  the 
object  of  the  warrant  in  the  hands  of  the  con 
stable  was  to  secure  an  investigation  merely,  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not  the  custody  was  a  le 
gal  custody,  and  that  Langston  was  advising  to 
the  serving  of  the  warrant  for  that  purpose. 
This  young  gentleman  is  also  a  Government 
witness,  brought  here  by  no  means  thus  to  ex 
culpate,  but  to  convict  the  defendant.  The  Gov 
ernment,  therefore,  find  themselves  forced  to 
abandon  the  case,  or  else  to  claim  that  this  ad- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


137 


vice  as  to  the  service  of  the  warrant  was  a  mere 
cover  or  subterfuge,  or  was  illegal  and  revolu 
tionary; —  but  we  apprehend  that  the  Court 
will,  in  due  time,  relieve  them  from  this  latter 
position,  and  instruct  you  more  in  accordance 
with  reason  and  law. 

Barber  saw  Langston  at  Wellington  advising 
only  legal  measures,  and  doing  nothing  what 
ever  to  excite  the  crowd  to  a  forcible  rescue. 
lie  thinks  he  saw  him  stand  at  one  time  with 
his  hand  upon  a  gun,  but  has  no  reason  to  be 
lieve  that  it  was  Langston's  gun,  nor  does  he 
know  that  it  was  not.  It  is  said  that  when  sent 
for  to  go  up  to  Lowe,  he  left  the  gun  with,  or 
handed  it  back  to  some  one,  and  went  up  un 
armed,  and  at  no  other  time  during  the  after 
noon  did  any  one  see  any  arms  in  his  possession. 
And  I  take  it  that  the  testimony  of  this  witness, 
Barber  —  called  by  the  Government  —  a  can 
did  and  fair  witness,  whose  testimony  is  straight 
forward  and  clear,  should  have  great  weight 
with  you ;  and  that  since  he  swears  positively 
that  Langston  acted  constantly  as  a  peacemaker 
when  he  acted  at  all,  you  should  well  consider 
the  remarkable  concurrence  of  his  testimony 
with  that  of  the  other  Government  witnesses  al 
ready  mentioned. 

Sciples  swears  that  he  heard  Langston  talk 
ing  with  Watson,  up  stairs,  about  a  habeas  cor- 
pus,  and  saying  that  it  was  too  late  to  send  for 
it,  because  troops  from  Cleveland  had  been  sent 
for,  and  would  arrive  by  the  5  o'clock  train. 
Now  can  you  believe  Sciples,  when  Watson 
swears  positively  that  he  had  no  conversation 
with  Langston  upon  any  subject  whatsoever,  in 
any  part  of  that  building  during  that  day  ?  I 
need  say  nothing  about  Sciples'  character,  when 
he  has  already,  in  your  presence  upon  the  stand, 
acknowledged  himself  to  be  a  liar,  and  has 
been  impeached  here  by  half  a  dozen  of  the 
best  citizens  of  Wellington,  who  declare  him  to 
be  notoriously  untruthful  and  unreliable.  And 
as  to  what  he  says  about  seeing  Langston  go  up 
stairs  with  Watson,  just  before  the  rescue,  he  is 
as  positively  contradicted  again  by  Watson,  and 
is  entitled  to  no  sort  of  credit. 

Bonny  says  that  Cummings  said  to  him,  that 
if  he  would  open  that  door  —  the  front  door 
—  Langston  would  give  him  five  dollars.  But 
he  does  n't  claim  that  Cummings  was  authorized 
to  make  any  such  statement,  or  that  it  was  any 
thing  more  than  an  expression  of  private  opin 
ion,  and  what  the  grounds  of  that  opinion  were 
he  does  not  pretend  to  know ;  nor  does  he  say 
that  Langston  knew  or  heard  of  the  offer. 

Reynolds'  appearance  alone  is  abundant  im 
peachment  of  his  credibility.  Full  of  conceit, 
overflowing  with  airs,  and  anxious  only  to  dis 
play  his  wonderful  self.  He  swears  that,  at  a 
certain  time,  he  was  guarding  the  back-door, 
when  it  was  shown  that,  at  that  time,  Fay  and 
Davis  were  guarding  it,  and  he  was  not.  And 
he  undertakes  to  make  us  believe  that  Langston 
said,  half  an  hour  after  the  train  had  passed, 
that  they  must  have  him  soon,  or  the  train 

18 


would  come  with  the  soldiers  !  And  every 
other  statement  he  makes  is  equally  absurd  and 
incredible.  He  claims  that  Langston  came  at 
the  time  the  rush  was  made.  We  have  pre 
viously  shown  that,  at  that  time,  Langston  was 
in  front  of  the  hotel. 

THIRTEENTH  DAY. —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Mr.  GRISWOLP  continued  :  1  was  proceeding 
with  the  testimony  touching  the  conduct  of 
Langston  at  Wellington.  The  next  witness  was 
Davis.  What  was  his  testimony  ?  Why,  he 
thinks  that  Langston  was  the  man  that  was  with 
Patton,  when  Patton  had  a  conversation  with 
Lowe,  which  Lowe  thinks  was  before  the  read 
ing  of  the  warrant,  and  which  Patton  swears, 
positively,  was  afterward ;  but  Lowe  and  Pat- 
ton  agree  in  contradicting  Davis,  that  Langston 
was  not  with  them,  but  it  was  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Griffin,  whom  neither  of  them  knew, 
and  who  claimed  to  be  a  stranger  passing 
through  the  place  on  his  journey. 

We  now  come  to  the  only  remaining  witness 
who  testifies  as  to  what  Langston  said,  and,  as 
I  take  it,  must  be  almost  the  only  witness  the 
Government  will  undertake  to  rely  upon.  And, 
as  I  view  it,  without  his  testimony — I  refer  to 
Mr.  Lowe — there  is  no  evidence  that  would 
weigh  a  feather  against  the  defendant  if  this 
were  even  a  civil  instead  of  a  criminal  suit.  I 
do  not  deny  that,  if  Mr.  Lowe's  testimony  were 
correct,  well  supported  by  collateral  CAidcnce, 
and  consistent  with  itself,  it  would  tend  strongly 
to  connect  the  defendant  with  those  engaged  in 
the  rescue  of  John.  But  Mr.  Lowe  has  been 
proven  to  be  so  uncertain  a  witness,  his  mem 
ory  shown  to  be  so  utterly  at  fault,  that,  when 
he  undertakes  to  charge  this  defendant  by  a 
single  expression,  and  that  expression  being  at 
variance  with  the  defendant's  whole  conduct, 
when  the  whole  thing  rests  on  the  accuracy  of 
Mr.  Lowe's  recollection  of  a  particular  word,  it 
seems  to  me  great  caution  should  be  used  in 
taking  the  statement  as  true,  and  that  the  de 
fendant's  liberty  ought  not  to  be  taken  away 
from  him  on  such  testimony.  Mr.  Lowe  says, 
"  I  rent  word  for  Langston  to  come  up  ;  think  I 
explained  to  him  all  about  the  matter.  Lang 
ston  expressed  himself  satisfied.  I  told  him  I 
wanted  him  to  go  down  to  the  crowd  (this  was 
the  only  conversation  we  had  when  others  were 
present)  and  inform  them  of  what  I  had  told 
him.  Langston  said  he  would  go  down  and  do 
so.  Think  this  was  about  5  o'clock.  The  train 
passed  while  we  were  talking, — remember  this 
distinctly,  —  it  passed  nearly  two  hours  before 
the  rescue.  He  went  down  and  was  gone  some 
twenty  minutes  or  more ;  came  up  and  called 
me  out  into  the  little  room,  —  we  two  were 
there  alone,  —  said  he  had  talked  to  the  crowd, 
but  could  do  nothing  with  them,  —  they  were 
bound  to  have  him  any  how,  —  asked  me  if  I 
could  n't  get  Jennings  to  give  him  up  peaceably. 
I  told  him  it  was  no  use  to  talk  about  that ;  we 
should  hold  him  as  long  as  we  could.  Langston 


138 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


said  he  was  anxious  to  have  a  committee  go  to 
Columbus  with  us,  but  the  people  below  would  n't 
hear  to  it,  and  so  he  wanted  me  to  get  Jen 
nings  to  give  him  up  peaceably,  because  he 
did  n't  want  to  see  any  trouble.     When  I  told 
Langston  that  we  should  hold  on  to  John  as 
long  as  we  could,  he  rose  up,  and  turned  to  go 
away ;  as  he  rose  up,  he  said,  '  we  will  have 
him  any  hoAv.'     I  was  surprised  at  this,  because, 
up  to  this  moment,  I  confidently  believed  he  ! 
was  working  for  us."     Now  this  is  the  chief  tes-  j 
timony  upon  which  the  Government  relies  to  ! 
show  that  the  defendant  was  identified  with  the 
rescuers. 

It  all  turns  upon  a  single  word.  The  pros 
ecution  claim  that  he  here  showed  "  his  cloven 
foot,"  and  expressed  his  own  determination, 
that  all  his  words  of  peace  and  fairness  were 
lies,  that  failing  to  deceive  he  was  ready  to  use 
violence.  If,  however,  Mr.  Lowe  is  mistaken 
as  to  a  single  word  it  changes  the  whole  face  of 
the  matter.  If  he  simply  said  "  they  '11 "  have 
him  any  how,  as  he  had  before  stated  to  Lowe, 
it  would  have  been  duly  an  expression  of  opin 
ion  and  not  a  determination.  Is  a  man's  liberty 
to  be  taken  away  on  merely  the  accuracy  of 
Mr.  Lowe's  recollection  of  exact  words  a  man 
uttered  at  a  particular  time  ?  Did  Mr.  Lowe 
stand  before  you  as  a  perfectly  candid  and 
trustworthy  witness,  it  would  be  going  a  great 
ways  to  stake  a  -whole  case  on  his  recollection 
of  a  particular  statement. 

Even  in  a  civil  case  his  testimony  should  be 
received  with  great  caution,  for  you  all  know 
that  verbal  admissions  are  most  doubtful  testi 
mony.  With  the  permission  of  the  Court  let 
me  read  to  you  what  Mr.  Greenleaf  says  on 
this  subject.  1  read  from  Greenleaf's  Evidence, 
I.  258,  §200,  "with  respect  to  all  verbal  ad 
missions  it  may  be  observed,  that  they  ought  to 
be  received  with  great  caution.  The  evidence, 
consisting  as  it  does  in  the  mere  repetition  of 
oral  statements  is  subject  to  much  imperfection 
and  mistake,  the  party  himself  cither  being 
misinformed,  or  not  having  clearly  expressed 
his  own  meaning,  in  the  witness  having  misun 
derstood  him.  It  frequently  happens  also  that 
the  witness  by  unintentionally  altering  a  few 
expressions  really  used,  gives  an  effect  to  the 
statement  completely  at  variance  with  what  the 
party  actually  did  say."  Now  the  change  un 
intentionally  of  a  single  word,  instead  of  a  few 
expressions  by  Mr.  Lowe,  gives  his  testimony 
an  entirely  different  character.  The  rule  I 
have  read  is  applicable  in  civil  cases,  how  much 
more  should  that  caution  be  exercised  in  a 
criminal  case.  This  is  the  rule  given  when  the 
witness  is  perfectly  honest,  unimpeached,  and 
endeavors  to  the  best  of  his  ability  to  tell  the 
truth.  But  where  a  man's  liberty  is  staked 
upon  the  recollection  by  a  witness  of  a  single 
word,  when  that  word  is  inconsistent  with  the 
whole  conduct  of  the  defendant,  when  that 
witness  has  been  contradicted  by  numerous 
other  witnesses,  on  other  material  points,  when  1 


his  memory  is  proved  to  be  uncertain  and  inac 
curate  as  to  transactions  much  more  prominent, 
it  seems  to  me  that  this  caution  mentioned  by 
the  writers  on  evidence  should  by  all  means 

§ive  way  to   prompt   rejection;  and  I  cannot 
oubt  that  your  verdict  will  prove  that  you  do 
not  differ  with  me  here. 

Why,  there  is  not  a  single  occurrence  which 
Lowe  has  undertaken  to  state  here  in  which  he 
has  not  made  positive  statements  which  were 
contradicted  by  the  most  reliable  witnesses,  on 
material  points,  and  these  have  as  often  been 
witnesses  for  the  Government  as  witnesses  for 
the  defence.  He  says  he  was  all  the  while  per 
fectly  cool  and  collected,  and  ought  therefore 
to  be  believed.  This  does  but  make  matters 
seriously  worse.  For  if  he  were  excited,  as 
other  witnesses  confess  they  were,  and  every 
body  was,  there  might  be  some  sort  of  apology 
for  him ;  but  if  as  he  claims  in  the  midst  of  all 
this  crowd  and  excitement  and  imminent  peril 
—  as  the  prosecution  have  labored  so  hard  to 
show  there  was  —  he  alone  was  cool  and  col 
lected,  and  yet  can  tell  nothing  straighter  than 
he  has  done,  he  fatally  impeaches  himself  as 
having  the  most  unveracious  of  memories,  to 
say  the  least.  To  say  that  a  witness  making 
such  pretensions,  who  is  contradicted  on  the 
plainest  points  by  the  united  testimony  of  such 
men  as  Howk  and  Bennett  and  Patton  and 
Cowles  and  Diekson,  —  I  say  when  the  Govern 
ment  undertake  to  put  such  a  witness  forward 
as  so  reliable  that  the  liberty  of  the  defendant 
may  safely  turn  upon  his  accuracy  of  memory 
about  a  sinr/le  word, — they  are  going,  as  your 
verdict,  I  take  it,  will  teach  them,  considerably 
too  far. 

I  believe  I  have  now  gone  through  with  the 
Government's  testimony  in  this  case  as  to  what 
occurred  prior  to  the  rescue.  They  call  the 
witness  Ells  to  show  that  the  defendant  took 
part  in  a  meeting  at  Oberlin,  after  the  rescue 
had  been  effected.  Mr.  Ells  says  he  heard 
Langston  say  something  there,  but  he  can't 
recollect  what  it  was,  only  that  he  said  some 
thing  about  the  affair  at  AVrellington.  And 
because  he  does  n't  give  down  to  suit  the  Gov 
ernment,  he  meets  with  not  the  most  gentle 
treatment  at  their  hands.  It  is  a  little  odd  for 
counsel  to  abuse  their  own  witnesses,  but  we 
must  remember  that  the  District- Attorney  is  in 
a  very  tight  place. 

Warden  heard  Langston  in  the  evening.  He 
says  Langston  gave  a  statement  of  what  took 
place  at  Wellington.  He  heard  him  make  no 
reference  to  himself  that  would  implicate  him 
self  as  having  had  any  hand  in  the  rescue.  He 
says  further  that  there  were  other  men  there 
who  took  no  part  in  the  rescue,  who  could  give 
as  clear  a  statement  as  he  did. 

Philip  Kelley.  (And  in  connection  with  this 
testimony  of  Kelley,  I  would  have  you  refer 
again  to  the  testimony  of  Lowe.)  Kelley  says 
Lowe  sent  for  Langston  and  asked  him  to  assist 
him  to  pacify  the  crowd,  but  Langston  refused 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


139 


and  said  he  would  n't  interfere  in  any  way ;  the 
crowd  would  have  him  any  how.  But  Lowe 
says  he  expressed  himself  satisfied  with  the  au 
thority  shown  him,  and  promised  to  go  down 
and  see  if  he  could  n't  persuade  the  crowd  to 
regard  it ;  so  that  Lowe  believed  up  to  the  last 
moment  of  the  second  interview,  when  he 
heard  the  word  "  we"  as  he  thinks  he  did,  that 
Langston  was  working  for  him,  as  against  the 
rescuers.  "  So  neither  do  these  witnesses  agree 
together." 

Lyman  says  that  Langston  made  a  speech  at 
Oberlin,  and  recited  what  had  been  done  at 
Wellington,  without  in  any  way  referring  to 
himself.  I  think  it  is  Lyman,  also,  who  testifies 
that  while  Langston  was  speaking,  some  one 
said,  "Mention "no  names;"  but  another  wit 
ness  says  that  this  was  while  Lincoln  was 
speaking. 

The  other  witness,  and  the  one  upon  whom 
the  Government  place  great  reliance,  is  this 
man 

Gasion.  Now  it  is  some  time  since  he  testi 
fied,  but  you  remember  how  confused  he  was 
in  every  thing.  He  said  Shipherd  called  for 
certain  groans  and  cheers,  and  then  Langston 
began  to  speak  at  once.  But,  on  cross-exami 
nation,  it  appeared  that,  between  Shipherd's 
calling  for  groans  and  cheers,  and  Langston's 
beginning  to  speak,  half  an  hour  had  escaped, 
during  which  the  witness  went  to  the  post-office 
and  back,  and  when  he  came  back  he  found 
Langston  speaking  on  the  other  side  of  the 
street,  in  an  entirely  different  place.  And  he 
says  that  some  time  during  Langston's  speech 
some  one  asked,  "Have  you  got  John?  "  and 
he  said,  "We  have."  But  no  one  who  heard 
Gaston's  testimony,  confused,  mixed  up,  discon 
nected,  uncertain,  self^contraclictory  as  it  was, 
but  felt  sure  that  the  witness  neither  knew 
what  he  had  heard  at  the  meeting,  nor  what  he 
was  testifying  to  here  on  the  stand.  Indeed, 
this  was  evident  in  what  the  witness  said  in 
regard  to  what  he  heard  about  Marshal  Dayton 
at  that  meeting.  He  would  have  you  believe 
that  Langston  spoke  of  Dayton's  "  putting  down 
tJie  railroad  track,  his  coat-tail  sailing  m  the 
wind,"  to  use  the  elegant  phraseology  of  the 
learned  District- Attorney,  "  like  a  stub-tailed 
bull  in  fly-time."  It  is  clear  that  Dayton  was 
in  no  way  connected  with  the  doings  at  Well 
ington;  that  Langston  at  this  meeting  only 
gave  a  detail  of  what  had  happened,  not  iden 
tifying  himself  in  any  manner,  but  simply 
stating  what  he  had  witnessed. 

According  to  the  testimony,  then,  this  defend 
ant  was  at  \Vellington ;  but  whence  he  came 
there^,  or  how,  or  for  what  purposes,  the  Gov 
ernment  do  not  show. 

Therefore,  according  to  the  law,  we  presume 
them  to  have  been  altogether  lawful.  He 
found,  on  arriving  there,  that  John  was  in  cus 
tody,  and  embraced  the  earliest  opportunity  to 
inquire  by  what  authority.  Getting  answer, 
he  advised  strenuously  against  the  use  of  force, 


counselling  rather  a  resort  to  legal  measures ; 
and,  when  called  upon  by  Lowe  for  advice, 
told  him  frankly  that  the  crowd  were  excited 
and  seemed  bound  to  rescue  the  boy  at  all  haz 
ards.  And  then  at  Oberlin,  in  response  to  a 
call  of  the  community,  he  gave  an  impartial 
statement  of  the  occurrences  which  he  had  wit 
nessed  at  Wellington. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  will  you  for  one 
moment  think  of  saying"  that  suck  conduct 
makes  him  amenable  to  the  pains  and  penalties 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  V 

In  the  case  of  Giltner  v.  Gorham  ct  al.,  re 
ported  in  4  McLean,  402  seq.,  and  cited  by 
the  District-Attorney,  where  the  testimony 
against  Gorham  was  vastly  stronger  than  in 
this  case  it  has  been  against  Langston,  the 
Court  laid  down  the  law  thus,  p.  423  :  "  If 
from  the  whole  evidence  it  shall  appear  that 
Gorham  and  Comstock  and  Herd,  the  other 
defendant,  went  upon  the  ground  with  a  view 
to  preserve  the  peace,  and  they,  nor  either  of 
them,  while  on  the  ground,  said  nor  did  any 
thing  to  excite  the  crowd  to  oppose  the  seizure 
of  the  fugitives  for  the  purpose  avowed ;  and 
especially  if  the  tendency  of  their  acts  was  to 
allay  the  excitement  without  encouraging  the 
rescue  of  the  fugitives,  they  are  not  guilty  as 
charged  in  the  declaration." 

And  this,  your  Honor,  I  take  to  be  the  law 
applicable  to  this  case. 

The  jury  in  that  case  disagreed,  although  it 
was  in  a  carcase,  where  it  is  not  required  that 
the  proof  shall  be  "  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt," 
but  simply  a  "  preponderance." 

It  certainly  cannot  be  claimed,  then,  that  this 
defendant  was  there  using  violence,  or  encour 
aging  others  to  use  violence.  But  he  most  cer 
tainly —  with  whatever  motive  he  came,  and 
concerning  that  we  know  nothing  —  while 
there  expended  all  his  influence  to  allay  excite 
ment  and  prevent  violence,  according  to  every 
one  of  the  Government's  witnesses.  There  is 
another  matter  out  of  which  they  seek  to 
charge  him ;  to  wit,  that  he  implicated  himself 
by  expressing  joy  that  John  had  escaped,  —  was 
carried  off  from  the  custody  of  the  Kentucki- 
ans.  Now,  as  I  consider  it,  Gentlemen,  the 
bare  statement  of  the  District-Attorney  that 
Langston  "  gloried  over  the  rescue,"  can  hardly 
go  to  you  as  testimony ;  because  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  Government  is  not  a  witness  in 
the  case.  He  says  that  Langston  gloried  over 
it,  but  his  witnesses  have  not  said  so.  That 
there  were  such  expressions  in  the  crowd,  is 
altogether  likely ;  but  I  believe  none  of  them 
have  yet  been  attributed  to  Langston  individu 
ally.  The  District- Attorney's  favorite  "com 
mon  responsibility"  doctrine  can  hardly  be 
stretched  to  cover  as  much  ground  as  this. 
And  even  if  he  had  expressed  himself  gratified 
at  John's  escape,  forgetting  for  the  moment  the 
"  awful  wrongs  done  to  a  violated  law,"  he 
would  only  have  done  as  the  District- Attorney 
himself,  and  your  Honor,  and  every  one  of 


140 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  would  have  done 
too,  if  there  had  been  a  spark  of  humanity  left 
in  your  bosoms.  I  take  it,  that  the  impulses  of 
our  better  natures  are  such,  that,  because  a 
man  rejoices  over  the  escape  of  a  brother  man 
from  that  bondage  to  which  no  higher  power 
nor  greater  right  than  brute  force  has  bound 
him,  even  if  the  law  has  been  violated,  he 
cannot  safely  be  set  down  as  necessarily  an 
anarchist  and  a  traitor.  Laws,  to  claim  the 
.respect  of  good  men,  must  be  good ;  as  must 
the  men  that  make  and  the  men  that  execute 
them,  so  long  as  nothing  of  human  creation  is 
infallible.  And  let  us  thank  God  if  the  noblest 
impulses  of  the  human  heart  are  so  strong 
that  no  cruelty  of  law  itself  can  chain  them 
down. 

I  believe  these  are  all  the  testimony  brought 
forward  by  the  Government.  Their  chief  re 
liance  is  upon  declarations  which  they  claim  go 
to  identify  this  defendant  with  the  rescuers, 
and  yet  these  are  almost  without  exception 
cases  in  which  he  was  advising  a  resort  to 
legal  measures.  And  in  no  case  have  the 
witnesses  been  willing  to  hold  themselves  re 
sponsible  for  the  exact  language. 

Let  us  look  back  for  a  moment — to  show 
the  remarkable  harmony  among  the  leading 
witnesses  for  the  Government  —  to  the  speech 
of  John  from  the  balcony.  That  John  went  or 
was  taken  out  there,  seems  to  be  agreed.  But 
beyond  that  nothing.  For  Jennings  don't 
know  as  the  boy  really  said  any  thing,  or  if  he 
did,  what  it  was.  The  rest  agree  that  he  said 
something,  but  differ  the  poles  apart  as  to  what 
it  was.  Mitchell,  Davis,  Lowe,  and  Wack, 
each  undertake  to  give  a  version  of  the  dis 
tinguished  gentleman's  remarks,  and  yet  no  one 
hearing  them  separately  would  in  the  end 
believe  either,  so  utterly  diverse  are  their  re 
membrances.  Somewhere  I  have  collated  and 
compared  these  different  versions,  but  cannot 
lay  my  hand  upon  the  paper  now.  And  yet, 
all  of  these  undertake  to  give  very  nearly  or 
precisely  John's  words,  though  they  differ 
almost  as  widely  with  themselves  on  cross-exami 
nation  as  they  do  with  each  other  on  the  exami- 
nation-in-chief.  And  now  the  prosecution 
will  ask  you,  Gentlemen,  I  suppose,  incredible 
as  it  would  seem  in  any  ordinary  case,  to  con 
vict  this  man  upon  such  testimony,  and  the 
confidence  they  expect  you  to  exercise  in  the 
absolute  integrity  and  infallibility  of  Mr.  Lowe's 
memory  of  a  single  word,  in  a  conversation 
where  no  one  can  differ  with  him  except  the 
defendant  —  who  is  debarred  from  testifying  — 
because  no  one  else  heard  it ;  the  only  instance 
in  which  he  has  not  been  impeached.  It  seems 
to  me,  Gentlemen,  but  I  may  be  mistaken,  that 
this  is  a  manifestation  of  zeal  required  of  the 
gentleman  neither  as  a  lawyer  nor  as  a  prose 
cuting  officer.  I  cannot  account  for  such  an 
anxiety  to  convict.  It  is  not  his  business  to 
convict  every  person  merely  suspected  of  crime. 
Courts  were  never  instituted  merely  to  punish, 


but  to  see  that  justice  was  done  alike  to  the 
law  and  the  prisoner.  In  one  sense,  every 
person  charged  at  the  bar  is  to  be  considered  as 
part  of  the  nation,  which  is  represented  by  the 
District- Attorney,  and  I  trust  he  will  not  forget 
that  persecution  is  not  laudable  zeal  in  the 
performance  of  duty. 

I  have  gone  through  with  the  testimony  on 
the  part  of  the  prosecution,  and  I  need  not 
refer  to  the  testimony  of  the  defendant's  wit 
nesses  which  is  fresh  in  your  recollections. 
From  first  to  last  it  appears  that  Mr.  Langston 
was  laboring  to  promote  peace,  to  prevent 
violence,  urging  the  crowd  not  to  use  force  but 
to  confine  themselves  strictly  to  lawful  meas 
ures.  The  attempts  to  prove  the  statements  of 
defendant  contrary  to  this,  and  identifying  him 
self  with  those  using  force,  are  absurd  and 
abortive,  the  alleged  statements  being  incon 
sistent  in  themselves,  and  the  witnesses  either 
contradicted  or  impeached.  With  great  pleas 
ure,  therefore,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  com 
mit  the  interests  of  my  client  to  your  keeping, 
confidently  believing  that  you  will  lay  aside  all 
prejudice  to  his  color,  that  you  will  give  the 
testimony  a  fair  and  candid  examination,  and 
that  the  defendant  will  receive  at  your  hands  a 
prompt  and  honorable  acquittal. 

[It  being  already  three  o'clock,  and  the 
afternoon  of  a  Saturday,  the  Court  adjourned 
until  Monday  morning,  May  9th,  at  nine 
o'clock.] 

FOURTEENTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 

Mr.  BACKUS  opened  his  argument  for  the 
defence. 

[He  begged  the  indulgence  of  the  Court  and 
the  Jury,  as  he  was  laboring  under  severe  in 
disposition,  and  must  speak  undfer  great  disad 
vantage.] 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  :  — 

The  disposition  of  the  issue  now  before  you 
will  depend  upon  the  facts  which  have  been 
brought  out  in  the  long  examination  to  which 
you  have  listened.  Much  of  the  evidence  in 
the  case  has  been  ably  analyzed  and  comment 
ed  upon  by  my  associate ;  and  so  far  as  my  own 
judgment  is  concerned,  I  should  be  willing  to 
submit  the  case  to  you,  and  with  confidence 
await  at  your  hands  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  But 
I  know  that  my  client  would  not  be  satisfied  ; 
that  those  who  are  with  him,  and  whose  inter 
ests  in  this  case  are  similar  to  his  own,  would 
not  be  satisfied  without  a  still  further  examina 
tion  in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice  of 
the  facts  in  evidence.  I  only  wish  that  I  were 
in  a  condition,  in  regard  to  health,  that  would 
better  enable  me  to  discharge  the  service  \fhich 
they  expect  at  my  hands. 

It  need  not  be  said  that  this  case  is  new; 
that  around  it  are  clustered  circumstances 
which  are  not  usually  connected  with  cases  at 
this  bar.  It  need  not  be  said  that  it  is  a  pecu 
liar  case,  and  that  political  considerations  enter 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


141 


largely  into  its  facts; — not  the  considerations 
of  common  partisan  politics,  but  political  ques 
tions  that  affect  the  nation  at  large. 

The  charge  against  the  defendant  is  based 
upon  the  statute  which  is  claimed  to  have  been 
passed  to  make  effective  the  Constitutional  pro 
vision  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitives  from  ser 
vice.  The  offence  here  charged,  then,  is  a 
political  offence.  The  defendant  is  charged, 
not  with  the  breach  of  a  moral,  but  of  a  legal 
rule.  He  is  not  charged  with  the  commission 
of  one  of  those  crimes  at  which  Humanity  re 
volts.  He  is  not  charged  with  one  of  those 
acts  upon  which  the  whole  world  has  always 
looked  as  immoral  and  infamous.  He  does  not 
stand  before  you  accused  of  the  commission  of 
any  thing  which  is  in  itself  a  crime,  but  with 
an  act  which  is  only  a  crime,  because  the  law 
declares  it  is.  And  if  he  be  found  guilty  as 
charged,  his  character  will  not  be  affected  as  is 
his  who  has  been  convicted  of  theft,  of  arson,  or 
of  murder.  There  is  not  one  of  you,  Gentle 
men  of  the  Jury,  who  would  look  upon  him 
after  conviction  as  you  would  look  upon  a  thief, 
or  one  convicted  of  a  moral  wrong. 

The  motives  which  lead  to  the  commission  of 
these  two  classes  of  crimes  are  widely  different. 
That  of  the  one  is  selfish  and  base,  and  usually 
impels  to  action  the  low  and  degraded ;  and 
subserves  ends  base  in  themselves.  The  other 
is  good  —  acts  upon  the  good  —  and  leads  only 
to  deeds  good  in  themselves.  In  one  case  the 
transgressor  is  indeed  a  criminal,  and  became 
so  with  that  accompanying  malice  which  you 
all  know  constitutes  the  very  virus  of  crime. 
The  other  may  be  a  transgressor,  but  can  never 
be  a  criminal,  for  he  is  inspired  by  the  noblest 
of  motives,  such  as  all  good  men  approve.  I 
do  not  regard  the  duty  of  a  jury  as  the  same  in 
both  classes  of  cases.  In  the  one,  the  effect  of 
the  transgression  is  the  mere  breach  of  a  statu 
tory  provision,  the  punishment  of  which  is  jus 
tifiable  solely  on  the  ground  that  the  general 
good  requires  the  maintenance  of  the  prescribed 
rule  of  action.  In  the  other,  a  law  of  our 
moral  nature  is  trampled  upon,  at  the  same 
time  that  the  civil  law  is  violated.  In  the  for 
mer  case,  a  jury  will  convict  with  reluctance, 
although  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the  charge  ; 
in  the  latter,  if  in  their  judgment  the  proof  is 
sufficient,  their  moral  duty  will  cordially  unite 
with  the  convictions  of  their  judgment.  The 
act  charged  here,  Gentlemen,  is  not  one  which, 
even  should  you  be  compelled  by  the  obliga 
tions  of  your  oath  to  find  the  defendant  guilty, 
would  lessen  him  in  the  estimation  of  any  good 
man.  You  would  trust  him  as  an  honest  man 
just  as  readily  after  conviction  of  such  a  crime 
—  for  the  law  calls  it,  technically,  a  crime  —  as 
you  would  before.  If  you  find  him  obnoxious 
to  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  you  will  return 
him  "  Guilty."  We  use  that  odious  word  for 
want  of  another,  and  in  its  bare  technical  sense. 
Guilt  means  turpitude,  baseness.  But  I  must 
not  be  understood  as  applying  any  such  epithet 


as  baseness  to  the  act  with  which  Charles  Lang- 
ston  stands  charged  before  you  ! 

Now  I  say,  that,  in  the  case  before  you,  the 
statute  must  clearly  have  declared  the  offence, 
and  the  proof  brought  to  sustain  the  charge 
must  be  plain.  The  assembled  wisdom  of  this 
country,  in  the  Convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  could  never  have  intended  to  say 
that  it  was  morally  wrong  for  a  citizen  of  this 
free  country  —  a  country  whose  liberties  that 
Convention  had  met  to  secure  forever  —  to  ex 
tend  a  helping  hand  to  a  mortal  who  had  been, 
suffering  life-long  the  most  cruel  and  galling 
oppression,  or  to  aid  him  in  escaping  from  such 
bondage.  They  cannot  have  looked  upon  such 
an  act  as  wrong  in  the  absolute  sense,  because 
that  would  have  been  utterly  at  war  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  government  they 
sought  to  establish.  But  the  political  exigen 
cies  which  were  upon  them,  and  which  they 
were  compelled  to  consider,  obliged  them  to 
make  some  provision  for  the  pursuit  and  recla 
mation  of  persons  "  owing  service,"  who  might 
escape  from  States  where  municipal  regulations 
made  such  service  legally  due.  That  Conven 
tion  did  not  advocate  the  justice  of  such  a 
measure,  in  its  discussions  upon  the  subject.  It 
simply  provided  that  if  in  any  State  there  were 
laws  subjecting  any  one  class  to  another  class, 
though  such  laws  rested  not  upon  any  moral 
right,  but  only  upon  physical  force,  no  other 
State  should  so  legislate  as  to  impair  the  effect 
of  such  laws.  For,  as  the  States  were  all  to 
remain  sovereign  and  independent  in  matters 
not  delegated  to  the  General  Government,  with 
out  such  a  provision  in  the  Federal  Compact, 
such  laws  would  have  no  validity  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  State  that  enacted  them.  The 
question  was  one  of  Union  upon  this  footing,  or 
no  Union  at  all.  The  "peculiar  institution" 
had  at  that  time  no  existence  in  England,  and 
was  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  her 
laws ;  yet  the  mother  country  did  not  protect 
us  against  the  evil ;  —  and  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say,  in  the  language  of  the  illustrious  Jeffer 
son,  that  she  in  truth  forced  it  upon  us,  in  op 
position  to  the  remonstrances  of  the  colonies 
themselves. 

But  why  was  it  necessary  for  a  government 
that  had  thrown  off  the  yoke  of  foreign  oppres 
sion,  and  through  a  long  and  bloody  war  had 
waded  to  National  Liberty,  and  thus  set  an  ex 
ample  of  heroism  and  love  of  justice  to  all  man 
kind  for  all  future  generations,  —  a  government 
composed  of  a  body  of  men  whose  every  pulse 
beat  for  liberty,  —  to  make  this  hard  provision 
concerning  those  who  might  escape  from  another 
and  a  more  cruel  despotism  ?  Why  ?  It  was, 
I  repeat,  because  the  question  of  national  free 
dom,  and  even  of  nationality  itself  hung  upon 
that  provision.  Trusting  too  largely  to  the  love 
of  justice,  intelligence,  and  good  sense  of  the 
people,  they  confidently  believed  that  an  insti 
tution  so  intrinsically  and  plainly  evil,  and  even 
a  greater  curse  to  the  free  than  to  the  enslaved, 


142 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


•would  soon  be  voluntarily  abandoned  by  the 
slaveholding  States  themselves;  and  -with  such 
motives  and  such  hopes,  and  under  the  pressure 
of  such  emergencies  and  necessities,  the  clause 
in  question  was  reluctantly  inserted. 

In  1793  Congress  saw  fit  to  pass  an  act  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  as  well  as  another  clause  of  the 
same  instrument  for  securing  the  recaption  of 
fugitives  from  justice.  That  act  stood  for  a  long 
time  unaltered,  and  was  considered  amply  suf 
ficient,  even  by  the  South  itself,  for  the  purposes 
it  was  intended  to  accomplish,  until,  in  the  tur 
bulent  times  just  prior  to  1850,  it  began  to  be 
claimed  that  there  was  a  defect  in  this  legisla 
tion,  and,  after  long  and  heated  debates,  the 
amendatory  Act  of  September  18,  1850,  was 
passed.  Upon  this  amendatory  act  the  indict 
ment  against  my  client  is  based. 

Now  it  is  not  the  place  here  to  discuss  the 
propriety  of  that  legislation.  Congress  has 
been  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  have  possessed  the  power  to 
pass  this  law.  Unquestionably,  if  Congress  had 
jurisdiction  over  the  subject-matter,  it  was  alone 
for  it  to  judge  what  form  its  legislation  should 
take.  If  it  have  adopted  an  unfortunate  mode, 
the  way  is  open  for  its  legitimate  rectification. 
The  people  of  the  United  States  have  it  in  their 
power,  whenever  they  will,  to  rectify  any  legis 
lation  of  their  representatives,  and  I  trust  in 
God  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  that  recti 
fication  with  respect  to  this  act  shall  take  place, 
in  the  legitimate  mode ;  —  the  mode  appointed 
by  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say 
whether  Congress  was  or  was  not  authorized 
by  the  Constitution  to  pass  the  Act  of  1793,  or 
the  more  questionable  Act  of  1850.  The  Su 
preme  Court,  within  whose  province  such  ques 
tions  legitimately  fall,  has  passed  upon  this  point ; 
and  so  long  as  we  remain  under  this  Constitu 
tion  ;  so  long  as  we  are  content  to  abide  by  the 
Government,  as  it  was  formed  by  the  adoption 
of  that  Constitution  ;  —  so  long,  it  seems  to  me, 
we  arc  beund  by  the  decisions  in  the  premises 
of  this  constitutionally  appointed  tribunal. 
So  far,  then,  as  I  myself  am  concerned;  —  and 
when  I  say  this  I  am  speaking  for  no  man  but 
myself;  —  whatever  my  own  opinion  may  be  as 
to  the  original  question  in  regard  to  the  con 
stitutionality  of  that  provision,  I  feel  myself 
bound  to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  to  say  whether  this 
act  of  Congress  be  law  or  not.  And  they  hav 
ing  pronounced  it  law,  I  must  obey  it. 

There  is  a  right  other  than  the  one  to  which 
I  have  referred.  There  is  a  mode  of  redress 
other  than  that  which  I  have  already  indicated, 
to  which,  of  course,  we  have  a  right  to  resort  at 
any  time,  when  the  terms  upon  which  we  can 
enjoy  the  blessings  —  or  endure  the  curses  —  of 
this  union  —  whatever  they  may  be  —  shall 
seem  too  onerous  longer  to  be  borne.  We  —  the 
people  of  the  North  —  have  the  right  to  over 
turn,  if  we  can,  this  government,  and  to  adopt 


a  new  one,  acting,  not  under  that  Constitution, 
but  upon  those  principles  which  underlie  all 
Constitutions.  I  refer  to  the  right  of  revolution, 
the  ultimate  and  legitimate  resort  of  people 
who  find  their  government  too  oppressive  longer 
to  be  borne.  I  shall  then,  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question  before  you,  gentlemen,  look  to  the 
issues  that  are  made  here  under  that  law  as  that 
law  has  been  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  And,  looking  thus  at 
these  issues,  I  shall  ask  you  to  do  that  which 
you  would  do  in  every  other  case  where  an  in 
dividual  is  charged  with  crime  —  no  matter 
whether  that  charge  be  for  the  commission  of 
an  act  that  is  a  crime  in  itself,  or  whether  it  is 
criminal  only  because  prohibited  by  the  statute 
—  I  shall  ask  you  to  see  to  it  that  the  prosecu 
tion  brings  itself  within  the  limits  of  the  provis 
ions  of  the  statute.  And  I  know,  Gentlemen, 
that  there  is  not  a  man  upon  that  Jury  who 
would  not  prefer  to  find,  if  warranted  by  the 
testimony,  that  the  evidence  before  you 'does 
make  a  case  against  the  defendant.  I  know 
that  there  is  not  a  man  on  that  Jury  but  would 
prefer,  so  far  as  personal  preferences  could  go, — 
I  know  that  the  Court  itself  would  prefer  that 
this  man,  who  is  brought  here  for  the  commis 
sion  of  no  act  that  is  in  itself  wrong,  —  of  no  act 
that  would  tarnish  the  fair  fame  of  the  best  of 
men;  —  but  for  the  commission  only  of  that 
which  is  prohibited  by  a  statute  of  questionable 
character,  inspired  to  such  transgression  —  if 
he  ever  did  transgress  it  —  by  the  noblest  im 
pulses  of  a  manly  heart,  —  I  know,  I  say,  that 
you  all  would  prefer  that  he  should  be  found 
not  to  have  been  proved  guilty.  You  can  have 
no  desire  that  a  man  should  be  convicted  of  a 
crime  of  which  he  is  not  guilty;  and  although 
you  may  be  compelled,  after  mature  delibera 
tion,  to  return  a  verdict  against  him  —  which  I 
am  confident  you  never  will,  whatever  your 
political  biases  may  be,  if  vou  have  regard  to 
the  testimony  —  I  am  sure  it  would  be  with  the 
utmost  reluctance  that  you  would  find  your 
selves  thus  compelled  to  return.  Why,  it  can 
not  be  that  there  is  a  man  in  that  box  who  has  a 
"  political  end  "  to  answer  by  finding  a  verdict 
against  this  defendant !  —  That  there  is  a  man 
there  so  debased,  so  utterly  prostituted,  as  to 
render  a  verdict  against  this  defendant,  subject 
ing  him  to  the  penalties  of  such  a  law,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  being  able  to  say  to  his  brother  Demo 
crat,  the  party  leaders,  or  to  the  South,  that  he 
had  firmness  enough,  that  he  had  backbone 
enough,  to  stand  up  in  this  case,  and  on  this  Re 
serve,  and  render  a  verdict  in  favor  of  Slavery 
and  against  Freedom.  You,  gentlemen,  can  be 
actuated  by  no  such  desire  as  this!  You 
are  no  such  crawling  hounds,  such  lickspittles, 
such  craven  wretches  as  that !  I  have  known 
you  too  long  to  believe  this  of  you. 

You  have  lived  too  long  upon  this  free 
Reserve,  to  wish  to  inflict  the  pains  and  penal 
ties  of  this  statute  upon  any  man  who  may 
have  allowed  his  own  feelings  so  much  sway  as 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


143 


to  render  him  obnoxious  merely  to  suspicion, 
that  he  has  been  violating  its  provisions.  I 
take  it,  therefore,  that  you  will  look  at  this  case 
as  at  any  other,  and  if  you  are  compelled  to 
find  that  the  defendant  is  guilty,  you  will  so 
find  with  the  utmost  reluctance.  And  I  know, 
too,  that  this  Court,  if  compelled  to  pass  sen 
tence  upon  my  client,  in  obedience  to  the  oath 
administered  upon  assuming  the  judicial  ermine, 
and  in  obedience  to  the  law  as  it  is  found  upon 
the  statute-book,  and  construed  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  will  with  no  feelings  of  pleasure  per 
form  that  official  act.  From  my  acquaintance 

with  this  Court,  and  with  you,  Gentlemen  of  ]  your  verdict  to  shut  out  this  man  —  emphati- 
the  Jury,  I  know  that  nothing  could  be  more  '  cally  a  MAX  —  from  the  few  privileges  yet 
grateful  to  the  feelings  of  both  the  Court  and  |  allowed  him  in  this  "  land  of  the  free." 
the  Jury,  than  to  feel  warranted  in  the  conclu-  Did  any  of  you  ever  travel  abroad,  and  there 
sion  that  the  charge  contained  in  this  indict- ,  meet  with  an  American  citizen,  stranger  though 
ment  is  not  sustained  by  the  testimony  intro-  !  he  were  to  you  personally  ?  and  if  so,  was  not 
duced.  And  I  think  I  may  say  the  same  of  j  your  heart  irresistibly  drawn  to  him  by  the 
even  the  District- Attorney  himself.  For  I  can-  j  knowledge  that  he  was  from  your  country,  and 
not  believe  that  this  man  whose  whole  life  thus  '  was  attached  like  you  to  her  institutions  ?  At 
far  has  been  characterized  by  an  uncompromis- 1  such  a  meeting  did  not  your  heart  go  out  toward 
ing  love  of  Freedom,  can  have  become  so  j  your  brother  countryman,  and  did' you  not  lay 
changed  within  a  few  short  months  as  to  re- 1  it  open  in  unrestrained  sympathy  with  him  ? 


For  this  defendant,  who  can  count  a  long 
line  of  ancestry  on  the  one  side  not  of  African 
blood,  but  wealthy  and  respectable  Anglo- 
Saxon  sires,  was  brought  here  by  his  father  to 
enjoy  the  freedom  of  our  State.  But  though 
personally  moral,  honorable,  talented,  and 
every  way  qualified  for  the  privileges  of  citi 
zenship,  by  the  rigor  of  your  law,  those  privi 
leges  have  been  wrested  from  him. 

And  therefore  it  is  that  I  say,  if  you  would 
reluctantly  return  a  verdict  against  any,  even 
the  meanest  citizen  of  Anglo-^axon  blood, 
your  reluctance  must  be  tenfold  greater  by 


joice  at  the  conviction  of  a  morally  innocent  and  would  you  not  do  for  him  and  claim  of  him 
man ;  nor  can  I  think  that  the  petty  triumph  it  |  what  you  would  never  do  or  claim  at  the  hands 

of  one  of  another  race  V 

It  may  be  permitted  to  me  to  suppose  a  case 
applicable  to  one  of  our  own  blood. 

Suppose,  then,  that  there  were  a  State  here  at 

borhood,  would  compensate  for  the  upbraidings  I  the  South,  or  at  the  West,  or  at  some  other 
of  his  conscience  consequent  upon  an  unjust  place,  not  included  in  the  boundary  of  our  own 
conviction.  I  know  it  is  his  business,  as  the  i  Union,  but  a  neighboring  State,  with  whom  we 


might  afford  him  to  be  able  to  report  to  the 
authorities  at  Washington  that  the  penalties  o 
this  law  had  been  enforced  against  indi 
of  certain  political  connections  in  this 


Srosecuting  officer,  to  press  the  case  against  the 
efendant,  and  that  it  is  no  part  of  his  duty  to 
look  after  the  defendant's  interests.    That  duty 


had  a  treaty,  by  the  terms  of  which  that  State 
was  to  deliver  up  to  us  fugitives  from  service, 
and  we  in  turn  were  obliged  to  seize  and  send 


belongs  to  the  counsel  for  the  defence.  But  them  back  their  slaves.  And  suppose  it  were 
still  I  have  faith  to  believe  that  he  would  not  ]  true  that  by  some  law  of  that  State  unknown, 
wish  to  go  beyond  his  duty  in  the  matter,  and  I  perhaps,  to  the  makers  of  that  treaty,  every 
bring  extraordinary  and  unwarrantable  means  man  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood  were  subject  there 


to  bear  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  con  vie 
tion.  And  I  believe  that  I  may  say  the  same 
thing  is  true  of  his  learned  associate.  And 
though  you  who  are  not  fully  initiated  into  the 
language  and  manners  of  the  bar,  may  have 
thought  the  bearing  of  these  learned  gentlemen 
at  times  severe,  you  must  not  construe  too 
closely  or  too  literally  the  expressions  they  may 
have  inadvertently  dropped. 

If  it  be  true,  then,  that  the  Court,  the  Jury, 
the  District- Attorney  and  his  associate,  would 
rejoice  in  an  acquittal  of  this  defendant,  unless 
his  guilt  be  proven  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt, 
even  if  he  were  by  law  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  immunities,  and  privileges  of  an  Ameri 
can  citizen;  then,  certainly,  as  he  is  not  so 
privileged,  but  is,  without  reason,  deprived  of 
the  rights  asserted  by  the  Declaration  of  Amer 
ican  Independence  to  belong  to  all  men,  the 
anxiety  must  be  tenfold  greater  on  the  part  of 
all  of  you,  that  the  penalty  of  this  statute 
should  be  added  to  the  burden  that  is  already 
crushing  him  to  the  earth,  only  in  case  of  the 
most  conclusive  proof  of  guilt. 


to  be  reduced  to  slavery  ;  that  every  American 
citizen,  finding  his  way  into  that  territory  un 
der  certain  circumstances,  were  subjected  to  be 
reduced  to  bondage  for  life,  —  and  that  such  an 
Anglo-Saxon,  such  an  American  citizen  —  one 
who  had  been  a  citizen  and  had  expatriated 
himself — ^had  been  thus  seized  and  reduced  to 
servitude  in  this  neighboring  State,  —  that  after 
being  thus  reduced,  and  suffering  wrong  and 
oppression  till  it  was  no  longer  "tolerable,  he 
had  fled  hither  into  our  midst,  taken  an  asylum 
among  us ;  suppose  farther  the  officers  of  that 
State,  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  had  pursued  af 
ter,  and  captured  him;  and  it  were  noised 
abroad  that  one  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood  had 
thus  been  pursued  and  overtaken,  and  the  right 
were  claimed,  by  virtue  of  this  treaty,  to  return 
that  American  citizen  to  hopeless  and  unending 
bondage.  —  what  would  your  feelings  be,  if  the 
marshal,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty  in  such  a 
case,  should  summon  you  as  his  posse  ? 

Would  you  obey  that  summons  ?     It  might 

be  provided  by  statute  that  you  should  be  sub- 

:  ject  to  penalties  if  you  refused.     Wrould  you 


144 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


consult  even,  -whether  you  would  obey  or 
not? 

And  suppose  you  and  your  neighbors  had 
arisen  in  your  might  to  resist  the  execution  and 
return  of  the  marshal's  process,  and  had  res 
cued  your  fellow  man  from  the  officer  who  had 
seized  him  ;  —  would  you  not  justify  yourselves 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  case  appealing  irre 
sistibly  to  your  sympathies  and  to  the  noblest 
impulses  of  your  manhood  ?  A  case  appealing 
much  more  strongly  to  you  than  as  though  the 
prisoner  had  been  a  man  belonging  to  another 
race  ?  Would  you  not  expect  yourselves  to  be 
influenced  much  more  powerfully  in  such  cir 
cumstances  than  in  those  which  are  now  from 
time  to  time  occurring  in  our  midst  in  which 
the  negro  is  the  victim  ? 

Why,  we  have  seen  that  recently  in  Italy 
there  has  been  a  capture  of  a  young  boy  by  an 
ecclesiastical  society,  under  circumstances  that 
render  it  an  outrage  of  great  enormity.  That 
boy  belonged  to  a  particular  race.  Now  there  can 
be  but  one  reason  why  one  class  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  should  feel  themselves 
more  outraged  by  this  occurrence  than  another; 
and  that  is,  that  the  former  and  the  captive  are 
of  one  race,  and  bound  together  by  kindred  an 
cestral  blood.  It  is  for  this  reason,  that  while 
the  capture  of  this  young  MORTARA  is  known 
and  spoken  of  by  every  JEW  in  the  United 
States,  and  while,  probably,  there  is  not  one  of 
that  class  of  our  citizens  that  is  ignorant  of  this 
occurrence ;  yet  such  is  not  the  case  with  regard 
to  the  great  body  of  the  American  people. 
You  and  I  condemn  the  act  in  the  abstract  as 
heartily  as  can  any  one  belonging  to  the  out 
raged  race,  yet  at  the  same  time  we  well  know 
that  it  does  not  t alee  hold  of  us  as  it  does  —  and 
naturally  does  —  of  them;  and  hence  petition 
after  petition  has  gone  up  to  the  President, 
with  the  name  of  nearly  every  Jew  in  the  land 
attached,  imploring  his  interference.  Why? 
Because  of  this  bond  of  kindred.  Well  then, 
when  one  thus  allied  to  this  defendant,  a  man 
belonging  to  the  same  race  with  himself,  has 
made  his  escape  from  this  eternity  of  bondage 
to  which  he  was  doomed  by  the  local  law  of 
Kentucky  —  has  succeeded  in  escaping  from  his 
oppressors,  and  has  come  here  into  the  State  of 
Ohio,  is  pursued,  decoyed,  and  seized,  and 
is  about  to  be  hurried  back  to  a  deeper  and 
more  hopeless  bondage  than  that  from  which 
he  fled ;  —  do  you  not  know,  do  you  not  un 
derstand  'that  the  feelings  of  this  defendant 
would  naturally  be  affected  to  a  degree  to 
which  you  would  not  expect  those  of  one  of  the 
dominant  race  here  to  be  stirred?  Why,  Gen 
tlemen,  you  know  it  is  in  human  nature  that  it 
should  be  thus !  God  has  made  us  so ;  we  can't 
help  ourselves.  And  you  will  regard  the  con 
duct  of  a  man  thus  situated,  moved  by  such 
sympathies,  with  a  greater  degree  of  tolerance, 
—  you  will  find  far  more  excuses  for  his  con 
duct,  growing  out  of  this  sympathy  of  blood, 
and  this  mutual  outlawry,  than  for  one  of  an 


other  race.     And  there  can  be  nothing  wrong 
in  your  so  doing. 

Now  I  do  not  call  your  attention  to  these 
considerations  for  the  purpose  of  asking  you  to 
disregard  your  oaths,  to  disregard  the  law,  and 
to  lay  aside  the  testimony  in  the  case ;  but  I 
refer  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  enjoining  upon 
you  that  which  the  law  enjoins  upon  you,  that 
you  shall  regard  this  man  as  innocent  of  the 
crime  charged,  until  he  shall  have  been  proved 
to  you  to  be  guilty ;  and  proved  beyond  the  ex 
istence  of  a  reasonable  doubt.  And  I  shall  ask 
you  to  give  effect  to  that  principle  of  the  law 
recognized  by  all  the  writers  and  all  the  courts, 
that  where  there  is  conflicting  testimony  as  to 
acts  and  motives  necessary  to  constitute  a  crime, 
before  you  can  be  satisfied  of  his  guilt,  you 
must  be  satisfied  that  the  facts  in  the  case  are 
reconcilable  with  no  other  hypothesis  than  that 
of  guilt.  For  if  this  defendant  was  at  Welling 
ton  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  of  illegally 
wresting  the  alleged  fugitive  from  the  posses 
sion  of  those  who  had  him  legally  in  custody ;  if 
the  facts,  I  say,  are  reconcilable  with  any  hypoth 
esis  of  innocence,  or  with  any  other  hypothe 
sis  than  that  of  guilt,  and  you  are  in  doubt 
which  has  the  preponderance  of  probability, 
judging  from  the  evidence,  it  will  be  your  duty, 
as  the  Court  will  charge  you,  and  as  you  doubt 
less  already  know,  to  adopt  without  hesitation 
the  supposition  of  innocence,  and  find  a  verdict 
of  acquittal. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  I  wish  to  call  your  at 
tention  for  a  few  moments  to  the  issues  which 
are  involved  in  this  case. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  charged  in  this  indict 
ment,  that  a  certain  person,  termed  here  "  the 
negro  slave  called  John,"  "was  heretofore,  to 
wit,  in  March,  1857  "  —  though  the  proof  says 
January,  1856  — the  slave  of  John  G.  Bacon, 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  That  he  owed  ser 
vice  to  John  G.  Bacon  in  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky  ;  and  that  so  owing  service  to  Bacon,  he 
escaped  from  that  service,  and  fled  into  the  State 
of  Ohio. 

That  is  the  first  statement  of  the  indictment. 

Well,  now,  may  it  please  the  Court,  there  is 
no  averment  in  this  indictment  expressly  de 
claring  that  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  laics  of 
the  State  of  Kentucky,  this  individual  could  be 
held  to  slavery  there.  But  it  is  claimed  that 
the  Court  will  take  judicial  notice  as  a  matter 
of  history  that  this  John  could  there  be  held  to 
service  by  virtue  of  such  laws.  Now  it  seems 
to  me  that  an  averment  is  necessary  in  the  in 
dictment  to  that  effect ;  for  it  certainly  cannot 
be  claimed  that  every  man  with  African  blood 
in  his  veins,  is  in  such  a  condition  that  he  can  be 
held  to  service  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  That 
proposition  can  be  deduced  neither  from  history 
nor  from  law ;  for  as  I  understand  the  law  of 
slavery,  it  is,  that  the  child  follows  the  condi 
tion  of  its  mother,  and  certainly  it  is  a  clear 
proposition  that  a  child  with  African  blood  in 
his  veins  may  have  for  parents  a  white  mother 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


145 


and  an  African  father.    Now  the  fact  that  the 
father  of  an  individual  in  Kentucky  may  be  a 

Euro  African,  and  he  —  the  son  —  a  mulatto, 
alf  African  and  half  Anglo-Saxon,  does  not 
constitute  the  condition  upon  which  he  may  be 
held  in  bonds. 

There  is  no  general  law  that  this  Court  can 
take  notice  of  which  would  authorize  the  hold 
ing  to  servitude  of  an  individual  thus  born  and 
of  such  parentage. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  before  the  Court  can 
take  notice  of  the  fact  that  slavery  or  the  invol 
untary  servitude  of  a  certain  class  can  exist  in 
Kentucky,  there  should  be  an  averment  that 
this  individual  was,  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky, 
in  such  a  condition  that  he  could  be  held  to  ser 
vice  or  labor  as  claimed.  I  concede  that  if 
there  be  an  averment  that  he  was  of  African 
descent  on  the  mother's  side,  and  then  the  ad 
ditional  averment  that  he  was  in  fact  held  to 
service,  then  you  have  got  a  case  upon  which 
this  rule  may  operate,  for  the  Court  will  take 
notice  that  an  individual  of  such  parentage  may 
be  held  to  service ;  and  then  it  is  for  the  proof 
to  show  that  he  was  so  held  to  service.  But, 
upon  the  supposition  that  I  have  already  made 
to  you,  that  he  were  a  person  partly  of  African 
and  partly  of  white  blood,  and  the  African  blood 
were  derived  from  the  father,  and  not  from 
the  mother,  the  Court  certainly  could  not 
then  take  notice  that  such  a  person  might  be  a 
slave. 

How,  then,  can  the  Court  assume  that  the  law 
of  Kentucky  is  applicable  to  this  case  ?  Now 
it  is  necessary  that  the  law  should  be  averred 
in  the  indictment,  slavery  existing  only  by  spe 
cial  and  not  by  general  law.  It  is  not  sufficient 
to  state  it  as  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  v. 
Stowell,  referred  to  by  the  District-Attorney. 
The  question  in  that  case  came  up  upon  the  war 
rant.  Now  the  proof  would  have  shown  that  Lor- 
ing  was  a  Commissioner  authorized  to  issue  such  a 
warrant,  if  the  averment  had  been  made  in 
the  indictment.  The  Court  there  held  that  it 
was  not  enough  to  leave  this  to  the  proof.  It 
must  not  only  be  shown,  but  it  must  be  averred 
in  the  indictment.  So  we  say  with  regard  to 
this  averment  with  reference  to  the  owing  of 
service  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  It  is  not 
sufficient  to  prove  that  such  laws  exist.  It  must 
be  averred  that  they  exist,  and  then  leave  it  to 
the  proof  to  sustain  the  averment,  and  also  to 
show  that  this  person  claimed  to  have  been  a 
slave  was  held  to  service  undtr  and  by  virtue 
of  those  laws. 

I  know  not,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  whether 
John  was  legally  held  to  service  in  the  State 
of  ^Kentucky  or  not.  You  have  the  testimony 
before  you.  You  have  the  testimony  of  Bacon 
that  he  owned  John,  and  that  his  father  held 
him,  and  that  he  came  to  him  by  division  of 
property,  on  the  decease  of  his  father,  among  his 
children.  He  says,  also,  that  he  knew  the 
mother  of  John,  and  that  she  was  a  slave  also. 
Now  I  shall  not  ask  you  to  require  such  proof 

19 


of  title  as  old  Judge  Payne,  of  Vermont,  re 
quired.  He  said  he  would  be  governed  by  the 
law,  and  remand  the  slave  upon  the  making 
out  of  the  title ;  but  nothing  short  of  a  deed 
from  God  Almighty  himself  would  satisfy 
him! 

I  shall  not  go  as  far  as  that ;  but  I  shall  hold 
you  to  such  proof  as  is  required  by  the  decis 
ions  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Bacon  says  that  all  he  knows  of  the  relation 
which  John's  mother  sustained  to  his  (Bacon's) 
father  is,  that  she  lived  on  the  plantation  with 
the  other  slaves,  obeyed  her  master's  orders, 
and  worked  without  pay.  And  that  all  he 
knows  of  his  father's  title  to  John  is,  that  John 
lived  and  obeyed  and  worked  in  the  same 
way. 

John  went  off  in  his  absence,  he  says.  He 
don't  know  what  directions  were  given  to  John 
by  the  Irishman  during  this  absence,  or  what 
else  happened ;  but  at  all  events  when  he  came 
home  he  didn't  find  John,  and  a  couple  of 
horses  were  missing  besides.  The  horses  he  af 
terwards  found  in  Brown  County,  near  Biplcy, 
in  this  State,  but  John  he  never  found,  and 
has  n't  seen  him  to  this  day.  I  shall  spend  no 
time  upon  this ;  take  the  question  of  ownership 
as  it  is,  and  you  must  find  as  you  please  ;  and 
the  proof  of  his  escape,  though  equivocal,  is, 
perhaps,  as  good  as  they  could  make  it.  And 
then  as  to  the  identity  of  John,  —  we  have 
gone  into  no  proof  on  that  point.  And  I  don't 
know  as  I  could  ask  you  to  raise  any  question 
upon  the  identity  of  the  boy  John  in  Kentucky, 
with  the  boy  John  rescued  at  Wellington.  But 
the  next  point  at  which  we  arrive,  gentlemen, 
is  one  about  which  there  is  a  difference  of  opin 
ion  between  the  prosecution  and  the  defence, 
and  that  is  as  to  the  authority  furnished  to  Jen 
nings. 

And,  Gentlemen,  with  regard  to  the  fact  that 
this  Mr.  Bacon  signed  the  paper  which  has  been 
shown  to  you,  there  is  no  dispute.  The  only 
question  is  whether  that  paper  has  been  ac 
knowledged  in  such  form  as  is  required  by  the 
statute  of  the  United  States ;  for  if  it  has  not 
been  thus  properly  acknowledged,  then  it  gave 
no  authority  to  Mr.  Jennings,  under  the  statute, 
and  no  offence  could  have~been  committed  by 
the  defendant  in  rescuing  the  boy  John  from 
Mr.  Jennings's  custody. 

May  it  please  the  Court,  the  provision  of  the 
statute  upon  this  subject  is  as  follows.  It  is 
found  in  Section  8,  as  the  act  is  arranged  in 
Brightly's  Digest :  — 

"  When  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States  lias 
heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  escape  into  another 
State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,,  the 
person  or  persons  to  whom  such  service  or  labor 
may  be  due,  or  his,  her,  or  their  agent  or  attor 
ney,  duly  authorized  by  power  of  attorney  in 
writing,  acknowledged  and  certified  under  the 
seal  of  some  legal  officer  or  court,  of  the  Stale 
or  Territory  in  which  the  same  may  be  exe- 


146 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


cuted,  may  pursue  and  reclaim  such  fugitive 
person,"  etc. 

Now  who  are  empowered  to  take  the  ac 
knowledgment  and  to  certify  to  it  V 

Why,  any  "legal  officer  or  Court  of  the 
State  or  Territory "  from  which  the  fugitive 
made  his  escape,  is  authorized  by  the  terms  of 
this  act,  your  Honor,  to  take  the  acknowledg 
ment  and  certify  to  it.  But  certainly  when  it 
says  "  any  legal  officer,"  it  don't  mean  a  path- 
master,  it  don't  mean  a  constable,  although 
these  may  be  as  "  legal "  officers  as  any  in  the 
State.  There  must  be  some  limitation,  and  it 
seems  to  me  a  fair  construction,  that  any  officer 
authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  Stale  or  Territory 
to  do  a  similar  act,  is  intended  by  this  Act. 
For  it  would  certainly  be  too  broad  to  say  that 
any  legal  officer  —  a  school-commissioner,  or 
any  other  one  of  ten  thousand  "  legal "  officers 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  might  take  this  ac 
knowledgment,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  ! 
statute.  And  it  would  seem  to  be  not  only  a 
fair  construction,  but  the  only  fair  one,  that  the 
authority  extends  to  any  officer  who,  under  the 
laws  of  the  State,  is  authorized  to  take  such  or 
similar  acknowledgments  for  use  within  the 
same  State,  as  well  as  to  any  Court  of  the 
State.  Now,  then,  if  this  acknowledgment  be 
a  valid  acknowledgment,  it  must  be  so  because 
it  was  taken  by  such  an  officer  as  is  referred  to 
in  this  statute,  or  by  such  a  Court  as  is  referred 
to  in  this  statute.  It  is  not  pretended  that  it 
was  taken  before  any  Court,  and  hence  Courts 
may  be  laid  out  of  the  question.  It  was  indeed 
competent  for  Bacon  to  have  gone  before  a 
Court,  as  he  might  go  before  this  Court  to-day, 
and  have  that  acknowledgment  taken  in  open 
Court ;  and  the  acknowledgment  would  then 
be  properly  attested  by  the  seal  of  the  Court, 
and  would  prove  itself,  for  it  would  be  an  act 
of  the  Court,  and  the  attestation  of  the  seal,  as 
we  have  it  here,  would  be  sufficient  proof  of  its 
genuineness.  But  there  is  no  pretence  that  it 
was  taken  before  a  Court ;  it  must,  then,  in 
order  to  be  valid,  have  been  taken  before  some 
such  "  legal  officer "  as  is  referred  to  in  this 
statute.  The  claim  is,  that  it  was  taken  before 
a  certain  legal  officer,  to  wit,  the  Clerk  of  the 
County  Court  of  Mason  County,  Kentucky. 
It  is  averred,  it  is  true,  in  the  indictment,  that 
the  County  Court  of  Mason  County  is  a  legal 
Court ;  but  that  is  mere  surplusage,  it  is  not 
of  a  moment's  consequence,  except  to  show, 
perhaps,  that  Cochran  was  a  legal  officer,  by 
showing  that  he  was  an  officer  of  a  legal  Court. 
-On  this  supposition,  that  averment  may  be  well 
enough.  Now,  then,  if  I  am  right  in  the  posi 
tion  I  take  as  to  what  is  a  reasonable  construc 
tion  of  this  statute,  none  but  a  person  authorized 
by  the  laws  of  Kentucky  to  take  such  acknowl 
edgment,  would  be  such  a  legal  officer  as  is 
referred  to  and  intended  by  the  statute.  Sup 
pose,  then,  that  that  person  had  fled  from 
Ohio,  Ohio  being  a  slave  State,  and  the  ac 
knowledgment  had  been  taken  here  before  the 


Clerk  of  a  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  would  it 
come  within  the  requirements  of  this  Act  ? 
No ;  because  the  Clerk  of  a  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  is  authorized  to  do  only  certain  specified 
things,  administer  certain  oaths,  etc. ;  but  it  is  no 
part  of  his  duties  or  prerogatives,  as  such  clerk, 
at  common  law,  to  take  acknowledgments  of 
powers  of  attorney,  or  of  deeds  or  conveyan 
ces,  of  any  sort  whatever.  If  the  Clerk  of  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  then,  have  any  au 
thority  to  take  the  acknowledgment  of  powers 
of  attorney,  that  power  is  not  derived  by  virtue 
of,  or  as  incident  to,  the  office,  but  by  special 
statute,  and  we  have  no  such  statute.  And 
therefore  the  Clerk  of  such  a  Court  has  no 
power  to  take  such  an  acknowledgment,  and  if 
he  should  take  it,  it  would,  of  course,  be  worth 
less.  If  the  broad  construction  of  the  letter  of 
the  statute  is  to  be  followed,  and  any  man  who 
is  a  "  legal "  officer  may  take  and  certify  to 
these  acknowledgments,  then  a  watchman  here 
in  the  street,  the  Clerk  in  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  a  pathmaster,  a  jailer,  may  do  it;  for 
they  are  all  "  legal "  officers  in  the  strict  sense, 
but  this  construction  of  the  statute  cannot  be 
the  right  one. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  the  clerk  of  a 
court  of  common  pleas  in  Ohio,  if  it  were  a 
slave  State,  from  which  such  escape  could  be 
made,  would  have  no  power  to  take  such  an 
acknowledgment ;  but  for  the  purpose  of  such 
acknowledgment  it  would  be  necessary  to  go 
before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  a  judge,  or  some 
similar  officer,  who  by  the  laws  of  Ohio  is  author 
ized  to  take  such  acknowledgments. 

Now,  then,  where  is  the  authority  for  the 
County  Clerk  of  Mason  County  to  take  any 
such  acknowledgment  as  that  of  this  power  of 
attorney  ?  There  is  no  testimony  to  show  that 
the  clerk  of  the  county  court  of  Mason  County 
or  of  any  other  county  in  Kentucky  is  author 
ized  by  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  to 
take  acknowledgments  similar  to  this.  And 
will  this  Court  say  that  it  knows  the  law  of 
Kentucky  to  authorize  it?  Does  this  Court 
know  the  law  that  will  authorize  it  ?  Do  the 
gentlemen  know  any  such  law  ?  At  common 
law  this  officer  has  no  such  power.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  Court,  unless  there  be  a 
special  statute,  or  the  common  law  as  construed 
in  Kentucky,  will  authorize  it,  cannot,  of  its 
own  mere  motion,  in  the  absence  of  any  testi 
mony,  by  parole  from  an  expert,  or  in  writing 
from  the  State  Statutes,  or  from  the  decisions  of 
the  courts  of  that  State,  —  I  say,  in  the  absence 
of  all  proof,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  Court  can 
not  assume  to  lay  it  down  that  the  law  is  so, 
and  instruct  this  jury  that  the  clerk  of  the 
county  court  of  Mason  County  was  an  officer 
authorized  to  take  acknowledgments  under  and 
by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  Kentucky.  If,  then,  he 
was  not  thus  authorized  by  the  laws  of  Kentucky 
to  take  such  acknowledgments,  and  the  restrict 
ed  construction  which  I  claim  ought  to  obtain, 
shall  be  held  to  be  the  correct  one,  then  I  say, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


147 


that,  if  this  acknowledgment  had  been  taken 
personally  before  Robert  A.  Cochran,  it  would 
have  been  taken  before  a  person  having  no  au 
thority  under  the  statute  to  take  it. 

Again,  this  statute  not  only  requires  that  the 
acknowledgment  should  be  taken  before  some 
legal  officer  or  court,  but  that  it  shall  be  certi 
fied  to  under  the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or 
court.  Now,  then,  admitting  that  Robert  A. 
Cochran  was  authorized  to  take  the  acknowledg 
ment  of  this  power  of  attorney,  it  clearly  ap 
pears  that  he  should  have  certified  to  it  under 
his  seal,  —  not  under  the  seal  of  the  court,  which 
certainly  can  never  in  the  absence  of  express 
legislative  provision  be  used  to  certify  any  ac 
tion  of  his  which  is  not  an  act  pertaining  to  him 
as  an  officer  of  the  court.  Here  is  the  seal  of 
court,  attesting  his  act  apart  from  the  court ! 
Now  if  the  court  had  taken  the  acknowledg 
ment,  then  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  cer 
tify  to  it  with  the  seal  of  the  court ;  but  if  the 
officer  takes  the  acknowledgment,  by  virtue  of 
power  vested  in  him,  it  must  be  certified  to  by 
his  own  seal,  —  not  by  the  seal  of  some  one  else. 
Why,  your  Honor,  what  better  right  has  Robert 
A.  Cochran  to  certify  to  his  personal  acts  with 
the  seal  of  Mason  County  Court  than  with  the 
seal  of  this  Court  ?  What  right  has  any  one 
except  the  court  to  use  the  seal  of  the  court  ? 
What  are  seals  good  for,  if  they  may  be  passed 
around  so,  and  half  a  dozen  or  fifty  different 
officers  or  courts  use  one  seal,  or  exchange  seals 
as  it  may  happen  ?  But,  aside  from  the  ab 
surdity  o"f  the  thing,  the  statute  expressly  for 
bids  it.  The  statute  will  not  allow  the  clerk  to 
borrow  the  seal  of  the  court  to  authenticate  his 
individual  action  with.  He  must  certify  always 
to  his  own  acts  with  his  own  seal.  Now,  then, 
if  he  were  such  an  officer  as  has  power  to  take 
acknowledgments  of  this  kind  of  instruments, 
he  would,  in  some  instances,  have  an  official 
seal,  and  in  some  he  would  not.  Justices  of  the 
Peace  have  no  official  seal ;  but  Notaries  Pub 
lic  have.  A  Judge  has  none  of  his  own,  and  a 
clerk  may  or  may  not  have.  And  where  the 
statute  which  appoints  an  officer  furnishes  him 
with  no  seal,  and  another  statute  devolves  upon 
him  duties  which  require  the  use  of  a  seal,  he 
must  use  his  own  private  seal.  If  Mr.  Cochran, 
then,  had  an  official  seal  of  his  own  —  as  the 
seal  of  the  clerk  of  the  County  Court  of  Mason 
County,  he  should  have  used  it :  but  there  un 
doubtedly  was  no  such  seal ;  and  he  should, 
therefore,  have  employed  his  own  private  seal. 
But  the  seal  that  he  has  employed  is  the  seal, 
not  of  the  clerk,  but  of  the "  Mason  County 
Court,  and  he  has  employed  it  to  authenticate 
his  individual  acts  independent  of  the  Court. 

The  District- Attorney,  then,  cannot  claim 
that  this  Mr.  Cochran  had  authority  under  the 
laws  of  Kentucky,  or  under  any  other  laws,  to 
take  this  acknowledgment ;  and  if  he  had,  he 
certainly  will  not  claim  that  it  is  properly  au 
thenticated  by  the  use  of  the  seal  of  Mason 
County  Court! 


No  one  will  deny  that  in  Kentucky,  as  here 
and  elsewhere,  such  acknowledgments  may  be 
taken  before  Justices  of  the  Peace.  Suppose, 
then,  that  this  acknowledgment  had  been  so 
taken  —  had  been  taken  before  a  Justice  of  the 
Peace.  Now  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  has  no  of 
ficial  seal.  Suppose,  therefore,  that  he  had 
taken  this  acknowledgment,  and  then,  like  Mr. 
Cochran,  instead  of  attaching  his  OAvn  private 
seal  to  it,  had  assumed  the  use  of  the  seal  of 
the  Mason  County  Court,  and  attested  the  ac 
knowledgment  with  it !  Would  any  one  call 
that  a  proper  attestation  ?  But  what  better  right 
has  Mr.  Cochran  to  use  the  seal  of  the  Mason 
County  Court  for  private  purposes,  than  a  Jus 
tice  of  the  Peace,  or  any  other  man  ?  Certainly, 
none  at  all.  If  the  application  had  been  made  to 
a  Notary  Public,  he,  having  an  official  seal, 
would,  of  course,  have  used  it.  And  a  Justice 
of  the  Peace  would  have  used  his  private  seal. 

Now,  has  this  statute  been  complied  with  ? 
Has  this  Robert  A.  Cochran  attempted  to  certify 
to  this  acknowledgment  under  his  seal  ?  Not  at 
all.  He  has  employed  the  seal  of  the  County 
Court  of  Mason  County,  and  has  thus  destroyed 
the  efficacy  of  the  acknowledgment,  granting 
that  he  had  a  right  to  take  it  and  to  certify  to  it 
at  all.  By  virtue  of  his  office,  as  Clerk  of  the 
Mason  Court,  it  may  be,  and  undoubtedly  is, 
both  his  right  and  his  duty  to  make  use  of  the 
seal  of  the  Court  in  authenticating  the  acts  of 
the  Court,  or  his  acts  as  an  officer  of  the 
Court ;  but  to  use  it  for  such  purposes  as 
this,  even  if  he  had  a  right  to  take  the  acknowl 
edgment,  is  just  as  absurd  and  illegitimate  as  it 
would  be  for  any  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  that 
State  to  use  it  to  attest  the  acknowledgment  of 
instruments  taken  before  him.  The  acknowl 
edgment  of  this  paper  is  ambiguous.  It  does  not 


purport  to  have  been  acknowledged  before  the 
Court,  and  yet  comes  attested  with  the  seal  of 
the  Court.  It  does  purport  to  have  been  ac 
knowledged  before  Robert  A.  Cochran ;  but  his 
seal,  official  or  private,  is  sought  for  in  vain  ! 
Can  it  be  claimed  for  one  moment,  then,  that 
the  requirements  of  the  statute  have  been  met, 
granting  —  what  is  also  unproven  —  that  Rob 
ert  A.  Cochran  had  any  authority  to  take  and 
attest  acknowledgments  of  this  kind  ? 

I  think  it  safe  enough  to  say,  therefore,  your 
Honor,  that  this  power  of  attorney,  upon  which 
this  whole  prosecution  rests,  is  worthless,  be 
cause,  in  the  first  place,  Robert  A.  Cochran,  al 
though  as  "  legal "  an  officer  as  any  pathmaster 
for  ought  I  know,  is  no  more  qualified  than 
such  a^pathmaster  to  acknoAvledge  such  instru 
ments,  not  being  such  an  officer  as  was  intended 
by  the  statute.  And,  in  the  second  place,  if  he 
were  fully  authorized,  being  altogether  such  an 
officer  as  the  statute  intended,  the  acknowledg 
ment  is  defective,  and  not  according  to  law,  be 
cause  he  has  not  certified  to  it  under  his  own 
seal,  as  the  law  requires,  but  has  unwarrantably 
made  use  of  entirely  another  seal. 

But  this  is  not  all.     I  have  another  objection, 


148 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


lying  still  nearer,  and  if  possible  more  fatal 
than  either,  to  the  manner  of  the  acknowledg 
ment  of  this  paper ;  and  that  is  that  this  ac 
knowledgment  was  not  made  before  Cochran 
personally.  I  know  that  I  have  an  issue  here 
for  the  jury  on  a  question  of  fact ;  but  I  claim 
that  it  appears  from  the  instrument  itself,  as 
well  as  from  the  testimony,  that  the  acknowl 
edgment  was  made  before  the  deputy  and 
before  the  deputy  only,  and  not  before  the 
principal  clerk  himself;  and  if  the  Jury  shall 
so  find,  then  I  claim  that  the  instrument  is 
worthless  and  void. 

I  know  that  Cochran  testified  that  Richard 
son  was  his  deputy,  and  that,  -by  the  laws  of 
Kentucky,  the  deputy  is  authorized  to  perform 
all  the  duties  of  the  principal  clerk.  I  am  not 
sure  that  the  testimony  went  quite  so  far,  but 
I  am  willing  to  concede  that  it  did.  Granting 
all  this,  the  deputy  could  not  take  the  acknowl 
edgment,  because,  may  it  please  the  Court, 
when  you  have  admitted  all  this,  neither  of 
them,  according  to  the  laws  of  Kentucky  have 
power  to  take  this  acknowledgment.  The 
principal  clerk  gets  his  power,  if  he  has  any,  to 
take  that  acknowledgment  from  the  United 
States  statute  from  which  I  have  already  read 
to  you  ;  the  laws  of  Kentucky  never  gave  him 
that  power.  Conceding  that  the  deputy  may 
do,  under  the  laws  of  Kentucky,  any  thing  that 
the  principal  may  do,  you  haven't  advanced 
one  step  toward  proving  that  the  instrument  is 
good,  for  you  have  n't  shown,  and  you  can't 
show  that  the  principal  has  any  power  to  take 
acknowledgments  himself.  And  it  is  just  as 
necessary  that  the  power  should  be  given  to 
the  deputy  by  the  act  of  Congress  —  before  he 
is  authorized  to  use  it — as  that  it  should  be 
given  to  the  principal  clerk.  If  the  deputy  can 
do  any  thing  the  principal  may  do,  under  the 
laws  of  Kentucky,  this  can  confer  no  power 
upon  him  to  take  an  acknowledgment  under 
the  statute  of  the  United  States,  when  the 
taking  of  such  acknowledgment  is  authorized 
only  to  the  principal  clerk  himself.  I  have 
already  said  that  the  laws  of  Kentucky  could  be 
referred  to  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  deter 
mine  what  officers  are  embraced  in  this  clause, 
by  showing  what  officers  are  authorized  and 
empowered  to  take  similar  acknowledgments 
under  the  State  laws. 

The  authority  conferred  is  special  and  per 
sonal  in  its  very  nature,  and  such  as  cannot  be 
delegated  to  an  agent  or  deputy.  Why,  how 
can  my  friend  Mr.  Cleveland  (a  deputy  clerk 
of  this  Court)  take  my  acknowledgment  of 
a  fact  here  to-day  in  the  name  of  his  principal, 
Mr.  Green,  and  certify  to  the  personal  knowledge 
of  Mr.  Green !  Why  the  personal  knowledge 
of  Mr.  Green  is  his  own,  and  no  other  person 
under  heaven  can  certify  to  it.  If  Mr.  Cleve 
land  were  one  of  the  officers  specified  in  the 
statute,  then  he  could  certify  to  his  personal 
knowledge  and  sign  his  own  name,  as  deputy,  to 
show  that  he  was  one  of  the  officers  referred 


to  in  the  statute ;  but  he  can  never  certify  to 
Mr.  Green's  knowledge,  and  sign  Mr.  Green's 
name  to  it  —  never! 

I  say,  therefore,  that  whatever  may  be  the 
authority  of  the  clerk  to  take  an  acknowledg 
ment,  the  deputy  cannot  take  the  acknowledg 
ment  in  the  name  of  his  principal,  and  certify 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  principal.  He  has  no 
power  to.  act,  except  only  in  his  own  name, 
and  can  certify  to  no  one's  knowledge  but  his 
own ;  and  if  the  proof  shall  satisfy  this  Jury 
that  no  acknowledgment  was  taken  other  than 
that  taken  before  the  deputy,  then  the  instru 
ment  must  be  held  by  them  to  be  null  and 
void.  I  have  already  conceded,  that,  if  the 
deputy  had  power  under  that  statute,  as  well 
as  his  principal,  to  take  acknowledgments,  then 
he  could  take  and  certify  them  over  his  own 
name  ;  but  never  over  the  name  of  any  other 
person  whatsoever.  But  this  acknowledg 
ment  purports  to  have  been  taken  by  Cochran 
"  by  his  deputy."  Now  I  am  ready  farther  to 
admit  that  if  the  acknowledgment  were  taken 
in  the  presence  of  Cochran,  and  the  deputy 
simply  acted  the  part  of  an  amanuensis  in 
signing  the  name  of  his  principal,  in  the  pres 
ence  of  his  principal,  by  the  command  of  his 
principal,  then  the  objection  to  the  deputy's 
part  in  the  acknowledgment  falls.  But  if  he 
acted  in  the  absence  of  the  principal,  of  his 
own  mere  motion,  and  still  professed  to  act  for 
his  principal,  then  the  acknowledgment  on 
this  ground,  if  on  none  other,  is  void. 

And  now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  wish  to 
call  your  attention  for  a  few  moments  to  the 
testimony  as  to  the  manner  in  which  that  ac 
knowledgment  was  made.  The  first  witness 
that  is  called  by  the  Prosecution,  to  establish 
the  fact  of  the  acknowledgment,  is  the  owner 
Bacon. 

Here  is  the  acknowledgment  of  the  power  of 
attorney :  — 

"  STATE  OF  KENTUCKY,  ) 
Mason  County,  ss.      j 

I,  Robert  A.  Cochran,  Clerk  of  the  County 
Court  of  the  county  aforesaid,  do  hereby  certify 
that  this  power  of  attorney  from  Richard  Loyd 
and  John  G.  Bacon,"  etc. 

Bacon  said  in  reference  to  this  instrument 
when  it  was  handed  him :  — 

I  executed  it,  and  sent  it  to  Mr.  Jennings  at 
Oberlin  by  Richard  P.  Mitchell.  He  was  a 
close  neighbor  to  me.  He  left  —  my  recollec 
tion  is  n't  distinct  when.  The  instrument  was 
executed  on  the  day  of  its  date.  Again  he 
says : — 

Saw  Jennings  after  I  had  forwarded  the  pow 
er  of  attorney,  at  Col.  Mitchell's,  a  neighbor's, 
the  next  day  after  Mitchell  had  left.  Mitchell 
started  with  the  power  of  attorney  the  same  day 
it  was  executed. 

Then  comes  Mr.  Cochran,  who  says :  — 

The  certificate  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
power  of  attorney  exhibited  is  in  the  hand- 


OBERLIN- WELLING!  ON  RESCUE. 


149 


•writing  of  Wm.  H.Richardson,  and  signed  by  him. 
My  name  was  signed  to  it  by  him.  He  was 
acting  for  me  as  clerk  when  the  certificate  was 
made.  I  was  absent  at  the  time  the  acknowl 
edgment  was  made.  Came  to  my  office  on  my 
return  just  as  Bacon,  Loyd,  and  Mitchell  were 
coming  out.  They  showed  me  the  paper;  I 
took  it,  and  went  in,  and  directed  the  deputy 
to  put  in  the  words  that  appear  in  the  last 
two  lines,  and  he  did  so  in  my  presence. 

On  cross-examination  he  says:  — 

They  were  at  the  door,  just  passing  out  as  I 
came  up.  Bacon  showed  me  the  paper,  and  I 
went  in  and  had  the  last  two  lines  added. 

And  in  reply  to  the  interrogatory  whether  he 
did  or  did  not  swear  on  the  previous  trial  —  that 
of  Bushnell — that  he  had  no  personal  knowledge 
of  this  acknowledgment,  he  said:  — 

"  I  did  not  so  swear  !  " 

JHfitcheUj  on  ,  cross-examination,  says,  "We 
went  from  the  book-store  to  the  clerk's  office. 
Found  Richardson.  He  took  the  acknowledg 
ment.  We  started  out  and  met  Cochran  at  the 
door  coming  in.  Bacon  showed  him  the  paper ; 
he  said  he  would  have  a  little  addition  made ; 
took  it  to  his  deputy,  and  had  the  addition 
made;  he  gave  it  to  Bacon,  and  Bacon  gave 
it  to  me.  I  have  stated  all  that  took  place." 

It  seems,  then,  Gentlemen,  that  they  went  to 
Richardson,  the  deputy ;  he  took  the  acknowl 
edgment;  they  left  the  office;  and  just  as  they 
were  going  out  the  door,  they  met  the  principal 
clerk,  Cochran,  coming  in ;  the  power  was  shown 
Cochran,  according  to  this  statement  on  the 
present  trial,  and  he  went  back  and  directed 
the  deputy  to  write  an  addition  ;  and  he  points 
to  that  (Mr.  Backus  held  the  paper  in  his  hand) 
as  the  portion  which  he  had  put  in,  commencing 
after  the  word  "  deed,"  and  reading,  "  The  said 
parties  are  personally  known  to  me ;  and  the 
said  acknowledgment  is  according  to  law ; "  and 
he  says  this  was  put  in  by  his  direction.  It  is 
said  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  handwrit 
ing  that  shows  it  was  put  in.  I  am  myself  un 
able  to  see  any  such  difference ;  perhaps  my 
eyes  are  not  as  good  as  those  of  the  District- 
Attorney.  But,  admitting  all  this,  what  is 
shown  ?  What  but  that  the  acknowledgment 
was  taken  by  the  deputy  in  the  absence  of  the 
principal  clerk ;  and  that,  on  his  return,  the 
principal  clerk  directed  an  addition  to  be  made, 
and  that  the  deputy-clerk  made  that  addition 
by  such  direction  V  Now  Mitchell  says  that 
this  is  all  that  was  done.  All  that  is  claimed 
by  Cochran  is,  that  he  did  meet  them  on  the 
steps  there,  did  take  them  back  into  the  room, 
and  did  direct  the  clerk  to  make  this  addition. 
This  is  all  the  District- Attorney  has  yet  claimed. 
Whether  it  will  by  and  by  be  claimed  that  a 
new  acknowledgment  was  gone  into  by  the  gen 
tleman  who  will  close  for  the  Government,  I  do 
not  know.  But  there  is  nothing  at  all  to  show 
this ;  nothing  to  show  that  there  was  any  ac 
knowledgment  made  except  that  taken  by  the 
deputy  in  the  absence  of  Cochran,  and  finished 


before  his  return.  For  not  only  was  the  cer 
tificate  completed  to  the  satisfaction  of  those 
who  made  the  acknowledgment,  and  they  were 
already  leaving  the  office  when  they  met  Coch 
ran,  but  the  acknowledgment  itself,  which  was 
the  presentation  of  the  paper  to  the  deputy  by 
the  parties  who  had  made  it  with  the  profession 
that  they  had  made  it  voluntarily,  deliberately, 
and  in  good  faith,  and  that  it  was  their  true  act 
and  deed  for  the  purposes  therein  named,  must 
necessarily  have  been  concluded  before  the 
deputy  began  to  make  out  the  certificate,  or,  in 
any  event,  before  he  signed  it.  To  the  com 
pleted  certificate  of  this  by-gone  acknowledg 
ment  the  clerk  proposed  an  amendment.  For, 
I  take  it  for  granted,  Gentlemen,  that  the  ordi 
nary  and  only  proper  course  was  pursued  in 
this  case ;  that  they  acknowledged  the  instru 
ment  to  be  their  true  act  and  deed  for  the  pur 
poses  therein  named,  and  that  the  clerk  then 
made  out  and  signed  a  certificate  to  the  fact 
of  such  acknowledgment.  And  I  fancy  the 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  will  not  contro 
vert  this  supposition,  —  will  not  think  it  would 
be  to  their  credit  to  claim  that,  in  Kentucky, 
public  officers  certify  to  acknowledgments  first, 
and  have  them  made  afterwards.  I  apprehend, 
however,  no  difficulty  on  this  point. 

The  certificate  being  made  out,  then,  after 
the  acknowledgment  had  been  taken,  Bacon, 
Loyd,  and  Mitchell  started  to  leave  the  office, 
and  passed  out  of  the  door ;  but  just  as  they 
were  going  down  the  steps,  they  met  this  Mr. 
Cochran:  Bacon  handed  him  the  paper;  he 
looked  at  it,  and  said  he  would  have  a  little 
ADDITION  made  to  the  CERTIFICATE,  and  by 
his  direction  the  deputy  made  the  addition :  — 
"  The  said  parties  arc  personally  known  to  me 
and  the  said  acknowledgment  is  according  to 
law."  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  then,  than  the 
character  of  this  worthless  acknowledgment. 
No  one  claims  that  the  acknowledgment  was 
made  before  Cochran.  All  agree  in  swearing 
that  it  was  not ;  that  it  was  before  the  deputy 
and  the  deputy  alone.  On  the  first  trial  the 
veracious  Mr.  Cochran  swears  that  he  has  no 
knowledge  of  it  beyond  the  recognition  of  his 
deputy's  handwriting ;  now  he  swears  he  did  n't 
swear  so  —  although  we  all  know  he  did  —  and 
with  the  help  of  the  District- Attorney  tries  to 
make  a  great  parade  about  a  certain  addition 
to  the  certificate  which  he  says  he  directed,  but 
which,  if  all  true,  you  all  see  amounts  to  noth 
ing  at  all.  Now,  Gentlemen,  I  cross-examined 
this  witness  myself.  I  had  in  mind  this  very 
point.  I  did  n't  believe  then,  as  1  do  not  be 
lieve  now,  that  the  deputy  had  any  power  to 
take  the  acknowledgment,  even  if  his  principal 
had.  With  the  full  conviction  of  this  principle 
of  law  in  my  mind  as  applicable  to  this  case,  I 
examined  the  witness  on  this  very  point.  I  did 
propound  to  him  the  question,  as  has  been 
shown  in  testimony  here,  "  whether  he  had  any 
personal  knowledge  of  this  acknowledgment  or 
not?"  and  he  did  just  as  unequivocally  and 


150 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


positively  state  as  he  ever  stated  any  tiling  in 
his  life,  that  he  had  none ;  and  my  notes  and 
memory  upon  this  point  have  been  corroborated 
by  the  oaths  of  several  witnesses  who  had  such 
means  of  knowing  that  their  memories  cannot 
be  at  fault.  Therefore,  Gentlemen,  as  good- 
looking  as  Mr.  Coehran  was,  and  as  gentlemanly 
as  he  was,  I  was  taken  very  much  by  surprise 
at  this  addition  and  amendment  to  his  first  pos 
itive  statement,  this  important  —  to  his  veraci 
ty  —  revision  of  the  narrative ;  and  I  have 
reasons  for  noting  the  significance  of  this  new 
vamping  of  the  story,  such  as  have  not  been 
brought  into  evidence  here,  and  it  is  not  there 
fore  proper  for  me  to  comment  upon.  And  al 
though  this  gentleman  was  the  Clerk  of  the  I 
County  Court  of  Mason  County,  and  therefore  j 
had  a  right  to  a  seat  in  the  clerk's  desk  here,  j 
and  thus  exhibited  his  good  looks  to  us  pretty 
much  all  the  time  the  testimony  in  this  case 
was  being  given,  —  I  was  none  the  less,  but  all  j 
the  more  surprised,  and  you  know  I  had  good 
reason  to  be.  And  I  took  it  upon  me  to  intro- ! 
duce  several  unimpeachable  witnesses  to  show 
that  he  testified  to  one  thing  on  the  former 
trial,  and  then,  after  hearing  the  arguments 
which  attacked  the  validity  of  the  acknowledg 
ment  on  the  ground  that  it  was  taken  by  the 
deputy  alone,  he  came  forward  and  amended 
and  contradicted  and  denied  his  first  assertions 
in  an  effort  to  patch  up  and  improve  this  case 
for  the  Government.  And  this  impeachment, 
Gentlemen,  I  take  it,  ought  very  seriously  to 
shake  your  confidence  in  Mr.  Cochran's  credi 
bility.  You  can  have  no  doubt  that  he  testi 
fied  as  we  have  proved,  upon  the  former  trial. 
And  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  he  so  testi 
fied.  I  say  therefore  that  the  Government  have 
no  right  to  place  reliance  upon  any  part  of  this 
witness's  testimony.  Mitchell  corroborates  him 
so  far  as  to  say  that  they  met  him  at  the  door, 
went  back,  and  the  deputy  made  the  addition. 
But  I  do  not  understand  the  District- Attorney 
to  claim  that  this  was  any  thing  more  than  the 
witnesses  declare  it  —  an  addition  to  the  certifi 
cate,  but  no  new  acknowledgment.  [Mr. 
Backus  addressed  this  in  the  tone  of  an  in 
quiry  to  the  District- Attorney  personally,  with 
out  interruption  or  reply.]  Of  course,  nothing 
else  could  be  claimed. 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  only  acknowledg 
ment  taken  was  that  made  before  Richardson, 
and  not  certified  to  by  him,  but  with  the  name 
of  the  principal  clerk  in  Richardson's  handwrit 
ing  ;  and  of  all  this,  as  Cochran  still  swears,  he 
was  entirely  ignorant  until  it  was  finished  ;  and 
the  certificate  is  attested  by  the  seal  of  neither 
"Richardson  nor  Cochran,  but  by  the  seal  of  the 
Mason  County  Court. 

Now,  if  this  Court  will  accept  an  instrument 
thus  acknowledged  as  a  legal  instrument,  I  have 
nothing  more  to  say  about  it.  But  if  the  Court 
shall,  on  any  or  all  of  these  grounds,  hold  and 
charge  with  me  —  as  it  seems  to  me  it  cannot 
avoid  doing  —  then  you  will  find  that  in  the 


rescue  of  John  no  offence  such  as  is  mentioned 
in  the  statute  was  committed  ;  and  the  defend 
ant,  whether  implicated  as  an  active  or  passive 
'"  :5pant  in  that  rescue  or  not,  must  be  ac- 


particip; 
quitted. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION,  2  O'CLOCK. 


Mr.  BACKUS  continued :  — 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury : 

The  testimony  shows  that  Mr.  Jennings, 
after  having  received  this  paper  which  he 
counts  upon  as  a  power  of  attorney,  came  to 
this  State  in  pursuit  of  the  boy  John.  You 
well  remember  the  testimony,  of  course.  He 
had  been  here,  skulking  about,  after  some  run 
aways  of  his  own.  Not  finding  them  in  Ober- 
lin,  he  got  track  of  them,  as  he  supposed,  at 
Elyria.  Not  finding  them  there  either,  Ije 
went  to  Painesville,  and  tried  his  hand,  but 
met  with  very  poor  success  in  Painesville,  I 
believe  [laughter]  ;  so  he  left  [renewed  laugh 
ter],  he  left  there  and  went  to  Sandusky;  and 
from  Sandusky  I  think  he  headed  himself  for 
Kentucky.  After  he  had  reached  home,  and 
found  that  the  power  of  attorney  had  been 
sent  forward  by  Mitchell  to  him  at  Oberlin,  he 
returned  thither  again.  I  shall  say  something 
by  and  by  about  the  conflicting  memories  of 
himself  and  Bacon  in  regard  to  the  arrangement 
under  which  he  returned ;  but  for  the  present 
we'll  follow  him  to  Oberlin.  He  got  back  there 
at  the  old  stamping  ground,  and'  put  up  with 
his  old  friend  Wack.  Says  he  arrived  Wednes 
day  night  at  Oberlin  ;  staid  all  night ;  and  the 
next  day  wrent  to  Columbus  for  a  warrant. 
Says  he  reached  Columbus ;  applied  to  Lowe, 
and  also  to  Mr.  Chittenden,  the  United  States 
Commissioner  ;  procured  a  warrant ;  made  an 
arrangement  with  Lowe  and  with  Davis ;  with 
Lowe  to  go  to  serve  the  warrant,  and  with 
Davis  to  go  along  to  assist.  Here  is  another 
remarkable  discrepancy  between  the  recollec 
tion  of  Jennings  an&  that  of  the  men  Lowe 
and  Davis,  but  I  pass  that.  He  procured  his 
warrant,  and  he  and  Lowe  and  Davis  repaired 
together  to  Oberlin,  arriving  there  on  Friday 
evening  just  at  dusk.  They  staid  all  night 
there ;  spent  the  day  on  Saturday  in  cogitating, 
seeing  in  what  way  they  'd  go  to  work  ;  found 
Mitchell  on  their  arrival,  and  Mitchell  told 
them  that  he  had  had  the  happiness  to  see 
John  —  (Jennings  you  know  had  n't  had  that 
pleasure;  he  hadn't  seen  any  thing  of  him 
since  he  saw  him  hauling  sand  to  build  his  mas 
ter's  house  with,  in  Kentucky,  some  time  before 
he  ran  away).  Mitchell  says  he  did  get  sight 
of  him.  The  difficulty  then  was,  to  know  how 
to  find  John,  or  to  get  hold  of  him.  They 
spent  most  of  the  day  on  Saturday  about  the 
town  ;  Lowe  and  Davis  perhaps  going  at  large, 
but  Mitchell  and  Jennings  keeping  in  pretty 
tolerably  close.  Jt  seems  that  the  people  of 
Oberlin  had  been  put  in  a  state  of  alarm  by  an 
attempt  a  few  days  before  to  run  off  a  family 
by  the  name  of  Waggoner. 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


151 


Judge  BLISS.  That  is  not  in  evidence  in 
this  case. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.     Two  witnesses  swear  to  it. 

Mr.  BACKUS.  It  is  of  no  particular  conse 
quence  excepting  in  connection  with  one  view 
of  this  case.  Well,  for  reasons  that  were  satis 
factory  to  themselves,  these  gentlemen  adopted 
a  peculiar  course,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in  the 
arrest  of  John.  They  came  here,  they  claim, 
armed  with  a  regular  power  of  attorney  from 
Bacon  to  Jennings,  who  (Bacon)  claimed  to  be 
the  owner  of  the  boy  John,  granting  full  au 
thority  to  arrest  and  take  him  back  to  Ken 
tucky.  To  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  Jen 
nings  had  gone  to  Columbus  and  procured  a 
warrant,  together  with  the  services  of  a  United 
States  Marshal  and  his  assistant.  Here,  then, 
according  to  their  claim,  they  stood  upon  high 
legal  and  moral  ground,  having  the  power  of 
attorney,  and  the  warrant,  and  the  marshal, 
and  his  assistant,  and  authority  to  summon  the 
posse  of  the  county  —  all  to  aid  and  support 
them  in  making  the  arrest.  Well,  now,  one 
•way  would  have  been  to  have  found  John  and 
arrested  him.  And  that  would  have  been  the 
legal  and  respectable  way.  But  instead  of  this, 
by  going  about  the  town  and  its  vicinity,  and 
under  one  pretence  and  another,  getting  ladies 
to  keep  them  over  night,  alleging  that  they 
wanted  to  " buy  cows"  they  took  such  a  course 
as  necessarily  to  awaken  the  fears  of  the  peo 
ple  that  unlawful  designs  were  entertained  and 
about  to  be  executed  against  some  of  the 
colored  people  of  that  place.  I  know  that  if  a 
police  officer  or  a  sheriff  has  a  warrant  for  a 
man  who  is  skulking  about  and  keeping  out  of 
the  way,  it  may  be  proper  that  he  should  use 
secrecy  —  and  for  what  purpose?  Only  to 
enable  the  officer  to  get  his  hands  upon  the 
rogue ;  but  for  no  other  purpose.  But  there 
could  be  no  such  pretence  or  excuse  in  this 
case,  for  John  was  always  within  sight  and 
reach  at  any  time  of  day  or  night.  There  is 
no  intimation  that  he  took  the  slightest  pains 
to  keep  himself  out  of  the  way,  or  supposed 
himself  in  any  more  danger  than  any  of  the 
rest  of  the  people  of  his  color  in  that  place. 
On  the  contrary,  the  very  opposite  appears 
from  testimony,  and  more  clearly  still  in  the 
very  circumstances  of  his  arrest,  and  the  ease 
by  which  he  was  decoyed  into  the  trap.  And 
with  such  assistants  as  Wack  and  Warren  and 
Dayton,  surely  these  gentlemen  could  have  no 
difficulty  in  finding  out  the  whereabouts  of  any 
"nigger"  in  that  town!  Why,  then,  should 
they  act  as  though  they  were  going  to  do  a 
mean  and  shameful  thing,  and  thus  necessarily 
awaken  the  suspicions  of  the  good  people  of 
Oberlin  that  foul  play  was  brewing  ? 

But,  taking  their  own  course,  they  went  over 
to  Boynton's,  and  there  cooked  up  a  plan  on 
Sunday —  I  suppose  that  was  n't  communion  day 
with  friend  Jennings,  or  that  Christian  worthy 
would  not  have  been  absent  from  his  accus 
tomed  seat  at  the  Sacred  Table :  —  but  I  be- 1 


licve  this  is  not  in  evidence  in  this  case  cither; 
so  I  will  refrain  from  any  comments  upon  it ; 
it  was  on  the  other  trial  that  the  District- Attor 
ney  testified  to  Jennings's  devout  piety,  and 
could  wish  Oberlin  nothing  better  than  that  its 
piety  was  half  as  sanctified  as  his ;  so  we  '11  let 
that  pass :  —  This  little  Shakespeare  Boynton 
was  employed  to  go  and  decoy  the  boy  out  of 
town,  under  pretence  of  hiring  him  to  dig  pota 
toes,  or  something  of  that  kind.  So  the  next 
day  he  went  and  found  John  ;  but  he  was  nurs 
ing  Frank,  who  had  got  cut  in  some  way ;  either 
in  a  fuss  with  Jennings  trying  to  get  him  off,  or 
perhaps  in  some  little  domestic  difficulty.  And 
John,  true  to  the  instincts  of  his  affectionate 
nature,  preferred  to  stay  and  care  for  the  wants 
of  his  disabled  friend,  rather  than  to  embrace 
the  opportunity  of  earning  the  money  he  so 
much  needed.  But  he  told  Shakespeare  that 
he  knew  another  negro  who  would  perhaps  go 
and  dig  the  potatoes.  So  the  idea  straightway 
took  possession  of  Shakespeare  that  this  offer 
might  be  turned  to  advantage,  and  he,  receiv 
ing  John's  assurance  that  he  "would  go  with  him 
if  desired,  in  search  of  the  other  man,  put  out 
for  Wack's  to  consult  with  Jennings.  Jen 
nings  scratched  his  head  [laughter]  and  con 
cluded  the  game  would  do  to  try  at  any  rate, 
and  Shakespeare  returned  to  John.  They 
proposed  to  drive  to  New  Oberlin,  where  this 
other  colored  man  resided,  but  were  only  fairly 
out  of  town  when  they  met  or  overtook  him, 
and  he,  pleading  previous  engagements,  and 
declining  the  overtures,  there  was  another  stand 
still.  But  only  for  an  instant,  for  Shakespeare, 
never  at  a  loss,  quickly  urged,  "  Well,  John, 
you  've  been  cooped  up  there  so  long,  the  fresh 
air  must  feel  good  to  you  ;  and  you  may  as  well 
have  a  good  ride  while  you  're  about  it ;  I  '11 
bring  you  back  again," 'and  John  being  nothing 
loth  to  accept  so  flattering  an  offer,  they  drove 
on.  Some  two  miles  out,  the  kidnappers,  Lowe, 
Davis,  and  Mitchell,  overtook  and  drew  up 
with  them,  and  Davis,  springing  first  out,  seized 
John  ;  Mitchell  helped  get  him  in,  while  Lowe 
held  the  horses,  and,  whirling  about,  they  head 
ed  for  Wellington,  with  their  helpless  A'ictim. 
Shakespeare,  returning  to  Wack's,  found  the 
faithful  Jennings  awaiting  him  ;  got  his  twenty 
dollars,  and  went  home  to  boast  of  the  exploit ; 
and  Jennings,  getting  a  hasty  dinner,  set  out  to 
join  his  cronies  at  Wellington.  This  is  the 
statement  of  the  arrest  briefly,  as  given  by  the 
four  worthies  themselves,  and  entirely  corrob 
orated  by  Shakespeare.  I  believe  these  five  all 
tell  the  story,  so  far,  alike. 

Now  I  understand  from  the  District-Attorney, 
that  this  indictment  charges  a  rescue,  not  from 
the  custody  of  the  marshal,  nor  from  the  cus 
tody  of  Mitchell,  nor  from  the  custody  of  Davis, 
nor  from  the  custody  of  any  person  whatsoever, 
excerit  the  custody  of  Mr.  Anderson  Jennings. 
This  is  the  first  count.  The  second  count,  the 
District- Attorney  tells  us,  has  a  great  deal  of 
surplusage  and  immaterial  matter  iii  it,  which, 


152 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


sifted  out,  leaves  it  in  substance  the  same  as  the 
first.  I  shall,  therefore,  as  in  duty  bound,  ac 
cept  his  construction  of  the  two  counts,  and 
argue  upon  the  One  charge,  that  the  rescue  was 
from  the  custody  of  Jennings,  the  alleged  agent 
of  Bacon,  the  alleged  owner. 

Now  then,  Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the 
testimony  with  regard  to  the  issue  of  this  war 
rant,  and  with  regard  to  the  presence  of  Lowe 
there  with  the  warrant.  You  will  remember 
that  Jennings  remained  back  at  the  tavern,  with 
the  understanding  that  he  should  stay  and  pay 
their  bill,  and  pay  Shakespeare,  and  join  them 
at  Wellington,  having  of  course  the  power  of 
attorney  all  the  while  in  his  possession.  Lowe, 
who  had  the  warrant,  and  Mitchell  and  Davis 
proceeded  to  the  spot  where  John  was.  The 
vehicle  in  which  John  was  riding,  in  accordance 
with  the  arrangement  between  them  and 
Shakespeare,  slacked  its  pace,  that  they  might 
overtake  him,  and  then  stopped,  that  they  might 
seize  and  carry  him  oft\  You  remember  Mitch 
ell's  testimony  as  to  how  John  was  ordered  to 
change  conveyances,  and  how  they  finally 
transferred  him  from  one  carriage  to  the  other, 


gard  to  the  person  who  swears  it  out.  But  or 
dinarily,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  the  officer 
follows  the  advice  and  direction  of  the  party 
getting  out  the  writ,  to  a  very  great  extent ; 
and  who  ever  supposed  a  defendant,  a  party 
charged  with  crime,  to  be  in  the  custody  of  the 
complaining  witness,  because  the  officer  in  mak 
ing  the  arrest  had  followed  the  direction  of  the 
complaining  witness,  and  because  the  warrant 
was  placed  by  him  in  thje  hands  of  the  officer. 

Again,  whenever  a  process  in  a  civil  case  is 
placed  in  the  hands  of  an  officer  to  be  served  — 
in  the  case  of  a  levy  upon  property,  for  in 
stance  —  why,  the  officer  is  under  the  direction, 
of  course,  of  the  party  for  whom  or  in  whose 
behalf  the  writ  issues ;  he  levies  in  pursuance 
to  the  direction  of  the  party  getting  out  the 
writ ;  and  in  case  of  replevy  the  same  is  true  ; 
—  now,  then,  after  the  levy  or  replevy  is 
made,  and  the  property  taken  into  possession,  it 
is  undoubtedly  in  one  sense  under  the  control  of 
the  plaintiff  in  execution  or  replevin ;  and  if  at 
any  time  after  the  levy  or  replevy,  and  before 


bail  given,  has  been  made,  this 


to  the  officer,  "  I  want  you  to  release  that  levy 


party 
ilease 


shall  say 


with  the  use  of  such  physical  force  as  was  nee- 1  or  replevy,"  he  will  be  most  likely  to  do  as  re- 
essary,  Lowe  holding  the  horses,  and  Mitchell !  quested,  taking  care  to  indorse  this  direction 


helping  Davis  manage  John.  It  is  said  that  the 
authority  under  which  he  was  arrested  was  not 
shown  him,  until  they  had  got  so  far  on  the  way 
as  to  reach  the  spot  where  the  Elyria  road 
branched  from  the  one  they  were  travelling ; 
and  then  since  they  had  thus  far  told  him  they 
were  going  to  take  him  to  Elyria,  it  became 
necessary  to  explain  away  such  a  representation, 
which  they  did  by  frankly  telling  him,  as  Lowe 
says  he  himself  did,  that  he  was  under  arrest  as 
a  runaway  slave,  by  virtue  of  the  warrant  of  a 
United  States  Commissioner,  and  would  be 
taken  back  to  his  master  forthwith.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  then,  in  the  mind  of  any  living 
being,  that,  so  far  as  Lowe  was  capable  of  mak 
ing  an  arrest  under  that  warrant,  this  arrest  was 
complete.  It  cannot  be  claimed,  except  by  very 
fine-spun  logic,  that,  although  Lowe  was  there 
under  the  JEgis  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
execution  of~the  warrant  then  in  his  hands, 
when  he  took  John  into  his  possession  by  virtue 
of  that  warrant,  he  then  had  not  John  in  Ids 
custody,  but  that  John  was  in  the  custody  of 
Jennings,  who  was  back  there  in  Oberlin,  play 
ing  "  hob  nob  "  with  his  friend  Wack.  I  know 
that  Lowe  was  set  in  motion  by  Jennings,  di 
rected  in  some  of  his  movements  by  Jennings, 
and  all  that :  but  it  seems  to  me  that  John  was 
just  as  much  in  Lowe's  custody,  as  though  he 
had  acted  upon  a  letter  from  Bacon  alone. 
Why,  of  course,  he  had  Jennings's  advice. 
Scarcely  any  one  is  arrested  unless  at  the  in 
stance  of  some  private  citizen  :  the  party  who 
sues  out  the  writ,  as  a  general  thing  advises  and 
directs  the  officer.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
tinder  some  circumstances  a  warrant  is  sworn 
out  for  a  crime  of  such  a  character,  that  the 
•officer  will  go  on  and  serve  the  writ  without  re- 


upon  his  writ ;  but  who  ever  thought  that  in 
such  cases  the  property  was  in  the  custody  of 
the  plaintiff  in  execution  !  Who  ever  heard  it 
said  that,  while  that  property  yet  remained  in 
the  hands  of  the  officer,  it  was  nevertheless  in 
the  custody  of  the  party  in  whose  behalf  the 
writ  of  replevy  or  execution  was  issued*!  Who 
ever  dreamed,  when  indicting  a  man  for  steal- 
ins  propertv  thus  held,  of  alleging  that  it  was 


ig  prope 
;olen  froi 


stolen  from  the  plaintiff  in  execution!  Why, 
an  indictment  would  not  lie  still  a  minute  con 
taining  such  an  averment  of  ownership  of  prop 
erty  alleged  to  have  been  stolen  from  such 
custody !  Undoubtedly  the  case  is  the  same 
here.  Lowe  followed  the  directions  of  Jen 
nings,  but  he  had  a  warrant  in  his  hands,  and 
it  was  under  and  by  virtue  of  that  warrant,  if 
at  all,  that  he  had  the  custody  of  this  negro 
boy  John.  And  it  seems  to  me  to  be  idle  to 
talk  about  the  negro  boy  John's  being  then  in 
the  custody  of  Jennings,  after  he  had  thus  been 
arrested,  and  before  the  officer  had  relin 
quished  control  of  him.  I  am  not  going  to 
deny  that  it  was  in  the  power  —  however  im 
proper  it  might  have  been  —  of  Lowe  to  have 
refused  to  obey  the  mandate  of  that  writ.  The 
writ  commanded  him  to  cfrrest  this  slave  John, 
and  to  bring  him  before  the  commissioner  who 
issued  the  writ,  that  he  might  then  and  there 
receive  all  and  singular  those  things  which 
should  then  and  there  be  considered  of  him  in 
that  behalf,  and  it  gave  him  no  authority  what 
ever  to  surrender  him  after  arrest  and  before 
return,  to  the  agent,  the  owner,  or  any  person 
whomsoever.  And  whenever  the  officer  under 
such  circumstances  should  discharge  the  person 
named  in  the  warrant,  after  arrest  and  before 
return,  or  deliver  him  into  the  custody  and 


OBERLIX-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


153 


control  of  another,  he  -would  thereby  disobey 
the  writ,  and  do  what  he  had  no  right  to  do ; 
although  as  there  might  be  no  one  to  complain 
excepf  the  person  who  sued  out  the  writ,  he 
miffht  be  held  harmless.  But  so  long  as  that 
Officer  of  the  law  continued  to  control  the  per 
son  arrested  by  virtue  of  that  warrant,  and 
down  to  the  time  when  he  should  deliver  him 
over  to  the  control  of  some  third  i)arty,  it 
seems  to  me  to  be  idle.to  talk  about  his  being 
in  the  custody  of  anybody  else  than  the  officer. 

Now  I  say,  Gentleman  of  the  Jury,  that  this 
boy  John  was  arrested  by  Lowe,  was  taken  into 
his  custody,  and  remained  so,  under  and  by  vir 
tue  of  that  warrant,  from  the  time  of  the  arrest 
down  to  the  time  when  he  says  he  delivered 
him  over  to  Jennings,  on  his  entrance  into  that 
room  there  on  the  second  floor  of  the  tavern. 

There  can  be  no  sort  of  question,  there  can 
be  no  sort  of  doubt,  that,  during  all  this  time  at 
least,  John  was  in  the  custody  of  this  Marshal 
Lowe,  and  any  rescue  made  during  that  time 
must  necessarily  have  been  alleged  to  have 
been  made,  not  from  the  custody  of  Bacon  or 
of  Jennings,  but  from  the  custody  of  the  inar 
shal  having  him  in  custody  under  the  law. 

The  question  of  fact  then  arises  here,  as  to 
whether  the  custody  that  was  taken  of  this  boy 
John  by  Lowe,  under  and  by  order  of  his  war 
rant,  did  cease  upon  the  arrival  of  Jennings  at 
that  tavern,  where  he  found  John  in  the  second 
story,  by  arrangement  between  Lowe  and  Jen 
nings;  or  whether  that  custody  did  continue 
down  to  the  time  that  he  was  in  fact  rescued  ? 
And  I  shall  claim,  may  it  please  the  Court,  that 
if  that  jury  shall  find,  that  the  testimony  does 
not  establish  the  proposition  that  there  was  a 
change  in  the  custody  of  John,  between  the 
time  of  the  arrival  of  Lowe  with  the  negro  in 
his  custody  at  Wellington,  and  the  time  when 
John  was  rescued,  then  the  allegation  in  this 
indictment  being  that  the  rescue  was  from  the 
custody  —  not  of  the  officer  of  the  law,  not  of 
Lowe  —  but  from  the  custody  of  Jennings; 
whether  there  were  a  rescue  or  not,  this  prose 
cution  must  fail,  because  the  testimony  proves 
one  thin^  and  the  indictment  alleges  another. 

How  is  the  fact,  then,  with  regard  to  any 
change  of  custody  ?  I  claim  without  hesitation 
and  without  doubt,  that  you  will  agree  with  me, 
that,  down  to  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Jen 
nings  at  the  public  house  at  Wellington,  Jen 
nings  finding  them  on  that  second  floor,  John 
was  in  the  custody  of  Lowe  as  a  United  States 
Marshal.  Now,  Lowe  says,  that,  fearing  his 
liability  under  the  statute,  he  transferred  the 
custody,  of  John  to  Mitchell,  the  agent  of  the 
owner,  immediately  upon  his  arrival  —  to  Jen 
nings,  I  would  say.  And  from  that  time  he  was 
no  longer  acting  as  a  Deputy  United  States 
Marshal,  was  no  longer  acting  under  and  by 
virtue  of  that  warrant,  but  was  acting  merely 
as  an  assistant  of  Jennings,  the  agent  .of  the 
owner.  Now,  Gentlemen,  is  that  true  ?  Why, 
•who  swears  to  it  ?  Who  heard  any  thing  of 

20 


that  kind  at  the  time  Lowe  alleges  it  transpired  ? 
Lowe  himself  swears  that  such  was  the  fact. 
He  does  not  slate  so  in  Jus  direct  testimony  ;  but 
on  being  asked  in  the  course  of  the  cross-exam 
ination,  if  he  ever  parted  with  the  custody  of 
the  boy,  he  sees  what  is  needed  to  make  out  a 
case,  and  immediately  "  remembers"  that  he  did  ! 

Jennings  goes  on  to  give  a  detail  of  what  hap 
pened.  Says  he  arrived  there ;  went  up  into 
that  room;  thought  the  room  insecure;  gave 
directions,  or  made  arrangements  for  another 
room ;  saw  the  landlord  ;  procured  another 
room  in  the  third  story,  that  he  regarded  as 
more  safe ;  and  so  on.  Jennings  don't  tell  you 
any  thing  about  a  transfer  of  the  custody  of  the 
boy  to  him  by  Lowe.  But  in  the  end,  when  he 
was  finally  questioned  as  to  whether  there  was 
any  transfer,  he  says  that  he  thought  he  had  the 
custody  of  the  boy  all  the  time !  He  thought 
that  John  was  in  his  custody  all  the  time  that 
he  and  his  captors  were  on  their  way  from  the 
place  of  arrest  to  Wellington  !  But  Jennings 
certainly  has  no  very  luminous  ideas  on  any 
phase  of  the  subject.  But  if  it  be  true,  as 
Lowe  swears,  that  he  transferred  the  custody  to 
Jennings,  then  the  custody  must  have  been  in 
Lowe  down  to  that  time,  which  contradicts  the 
shadowy  impression  that  seems  to  have  brooded 
on  Mr.  Jennings's  mind,  that  the  boy  was  from 
the  first,  and  all  the  time,  in  his  custody ;  and  it 
is,  therefore,  farther  evident  that  the  stupid  Mr. 
Jennings  and  the  sagacious  Mr.  Lowe  were  at 
that  time  acting  upon  entirely  different  views 
of  the  case.  Now,  Gentlemen,  you  have  the 
testimony  of  Lowe,  and  he  is  the  only  man  vho 
swears  to  any  such  transfer.  If  Jennings  comes 
to  this  at  all,  it  is  by  a  very  vague  and  general 
and  undefined  notion  that  he  has,  away  up 
somewhere  in  his  head,  that  the  custody  was  in 
him  all  the  time.  If  there  was  such  a  transfer 
of  custody,  why  did  n't  Jennings  know  of  it,  or 
Mitchell,  or  Davis,  not  one  of  whom  knows  any 
thing  about  it  now  ?  Lowe  alone  swears  to  it, 
and  he  alone  professes  to  know  any  thing  about 
it.  I  have  heard  it  said  that  it  takes  two  to 
make  a  bargain,  but  here  is  an  arrangement  of 
vast  importance  between  two,  and  made  only 
by  one !  A  very  extraordinary  kind  of  a  bar 
gain,  it  seems  to  me  ! 

If  you  are  bound  to  take  every  thing  as  true 
to  which  Mr.  Lowe  may  choose  to  swear,  then 
there  need  be  no  farther  investigation  upon  anv 
point  But  if  you  are  bound  to  take  his  testi 
mony  in  connection  with  the  testimony  of  oth 
ers,  then  let  us  go  over  the  ground  and  see 
what  was  the  conduct  of  Lowe  and  Mitchell 
and  Jennings  and  Davis  on  that  afternoon. 
By  whom  was  it  claimed  to  the  crowd;  by 
whom  was  it  represented  to  those  who  came  in 
to  inquire,  that  the  boy  was  held  ?  Why,  they 
tell  you  that  the  " papers "  were  shown;  and 
when  you  ask  them,  What  papers  V  they  tell 
you  that  the  warrant  was  shown,  and  are  pain 
fully  fearful  lest  they  forget  to  add,  "  and  the 
power  of  attorney  too." 


154 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


Well,  now,  we  have  an  issue  as  to  whether 
that  power  of  attorney  was  or  was  not  shown. 
The  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  —  some  of 
them  —  say  it  was,  others  think  it  was.  and  others 
don't  know ;  while  the  witnesses  for  the  defence, 
a  most  formidable  and  unimpeachable  array, 
swear  positively  that  it  was  not.  But  there  is  no 
controversy  between  the  witnesses  for  the  prose 
cution  and  the  witnesses  for  the  defence,  as  to 
whether  the  warrant  was  shown,  on  any  and 
every  possible  occasion,  as  authority,  among  the 
papers,  at  least.  The  Government  witnesses 
say  the  warrant  and  the  power  of  attorney 
were  both  shown.  They  might  very  properly 
both  be.  shown,  although  they  all  understood 
very  well  that  John  was  arrested,  and  was  then 
held  by  the  warrant  alone.  Why,  that  warrant 
asserts  that  it  was  issued  upon  the  oath  of  An 
derson  Jennings ;  but  it  does  n't  say  that  Ander 
son  Jennings  was  the  agent  of  anybody.  Who 
Anderson  Jennings  was,  or  what  power,  or  what 
right  he  had  to  go  and  make  an  affidavit,  no 
where  appears  outside  the  power  of  attorney 
itself.  It  was,  therefore,  in  the  highest  degree 
proper,  that  at  the  same  time  the  warrant  was 
exhibited  the  power  of  attorney  should  be  ex 
hibited  too,  for  the  purpose  of  snowing  that  not 
only  had  the  officer  a  proper  warrant,  but,  go 
ing  behind  it,  there  was  a  proper  affidavit, 
and  authority  to  make  such  affidavit  was  con 
ferred  in  the  power  of  attorney.  But  I  want 
you  to  observe,  Gentlemen,  that  in  every  in 
stance,  when  Wheeler  went  there  —  and 
he  is  apparently  one  of  the  friends  of  these 
claimants  —  made  their  acquaintance  imme 
diately,  and  sympathized  with  them  to  no 
inconsiderable  extent,  having  himself  a  broth 
er  down  there  who  might  some  day  be  in 
as  bad  a'  fix,  and  with  whom  at  least  one 
of  these  Kentuckians  was  acquainted :  —  what 
papers  were  shown  him  ?  Why,  the  warrant 
at  any  rate,  and  I  believe  also  the  power  of  at 
torney.  And  you  remember  that  when  Wat 
son  came  from  Oberlin,  on  the  alarm  that  a 
man  had  been  kidnapped,  and,  knowing  their 
previous  suspicious  conduct,  had  gone  before 
Esquire  Bennett,  and  made  an  affidavit,  charg 
ing  that  these  persons  had  kidnapped  John, 
and  got  a  warrant  issued  for  their  arrest,  and 
the  constable  Meacham,  an  intelligent  and  re 
spectable  man,  at  least  so  far  as  appearance 
goes,  and  in  fact,  having  the  warrant  in  his 
hands,  went  up  and  informed  Jennings,  and  in 
formed  Lowe,  and  informed  Mitchell,  and  in 
formed  Davis  for  what  purpose  he  had  come, — 
they  replied  to  him,  —  and  what  was  the  re 
ply  ?  Why  Lowe  came  forward  in  behalf  of 
all  —  and  this  was  in  the  room  in  the  third 
story,  a  considerable  time  after  the  transfer  of 
custody  had  taken  place,  according  to  Lowe  — 
and  Lowe  says,  "you  can't  arrest  me;  you 
have  no  power  to  take  me  into  your  custody  on 
a  warrant  from  a  State  magistrate ;  I  am  an 
officer  of  the  United  States  ;  I  have  a  warrant 
here,  regularly  issued  by  a  United  States  Com 


missioner,  under  which  lam  acting ;  I  have  this 
boy  John  in  my  custody,  by  virtue  of  that  war 
rant;  and  now,  sir,  if  you  proceed  one  step 
towards  the  execution  of  this  magistrate's  war 
rant  of  yours,  you  proceed  at  your  peril." 
Now  if  Lowe  had  in  fact,  a  little  time  previous 
to  that,  not  to  exceed  perhaps  half  an  hour, 
divested  himself  of  all  authority  and  control 
over  the  negro  boy  John,  and  changed  posi 
tions,  from  that  of  a  United  States  officer,  exe 
cuting  a  warrant,  and  having  the  negro  in  cus 
tody  under  and  by  virtue  of  that  warrant,  to 
the  position  of  a  private  citizen,  assisting  Jen 
nings  the  agent,  can  you  credit  for  a  moment 
that  he  would  have  said  to  Meacham,  "  Why, 
sir,  I  am  a  United  States  Deputy-Marshal,  act 
ing  under  and  by  virtue  of  this  warrant,  which 
I  show  to  you  —  there  it  is  —  read  it  for  your 
self,  and  it  is  under  and  by  virtue  of  this  warrant 
that  I  have  this  negro  in  custody :  now,  sir,  you 
must  not  interfere  with  me  ?  "  Can  it  be  pos 
sible  that  he  would  have  used  that  language,  if 
he  had  already  made  such  a  transfer  ?  Can  it 
be  said  that  for  the  purpose  of  magnifying  his 
position  he  would  tell  this  downright  lie  ?  If 
so,  then  of  what  consequence  is  it  to  what  he 
swears  ?  But  I  tell  you  nay,  Gentlemen ;  he 
told  the  truth,  the  exact  truth,  and  utterly 
omitted  to  count  upon  any  authority  of  Jen 
nings.  That  power  of  attorney  was  not  shown 
to  Meacham ;  no  reliance  was  placed  upon  it 
by  Lowe ;  none  by  Jennings,  who  was  there 
threatened  momentarily  with  arrest  by  this 
State  officer ;  no  reference  was  made  to  it  by 
this  man  Mitchell,  who  was  imported  here  to  do 
the  business  of  swearing.  They  stood  —  all 
stood  —  upon  the  warrant  and  upon  the  war 
rant  alone.  By  virtue  of  the  power  of  that 
warrant  they  warned  the  State  officer  off.  Now 
it  seems  to  me,  that,  if  that  man  Lowe  should 
stand  upon  that  stand  and  swear  until  dooms 
day,  that  he  had,  a  little  while  before  this  inter 
view  with  Meacham,  transferred  the  custody  of 
John  from  himself  to  Jennings,  not  one  man  of 
you  would  believe  one  word  of  it.  You  know 
that  it  cannot  be  true,  in  the  very  nature  of  things. 
If  such  a  transfer  had  been  made,  Jennings 
would  have  said  to  Meacham,  "  Why,  my  dear 
sir,  /  have  that  boy  in  custody,  as  the  agent  of 
John  G.  Bacon,  his  owner,  and  here  is  the 
power  of  attorney  by  which  I  am  authorized  to 
hold  him,  and  do  you  let  that  boy  alone,  or  1  'II 
make  you  smart  for  it,  for  I  am  protected  by 
this  power  of  attorney  ; "  and  Mitchell,  who  is 
most  of  the  time  under  oath  without  the  cere 
mony  of  administering  it,  would  have  come  for 
ward  and  testified  to  the  accuracy  of  the  instru 
ment  and  the  identity  of  the  boy  ;  and  that  man 
would  not  have  been  allowed  to  go  below  stairs 
without  being  fully  notified  of  the  authority  by 
which  the  boy  was  held ;  and  he  did  not  go 
below  without  such  a  notification,  for  Lowe 
gave  it  to  him  in  the  most  explicit  terms.  But 
go  farther ;  Esquire  Bennett  was  sent  for,  — 
the  magistrate  who  issued  the  warrant  for  the 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


155 


arrest  of  Lowe  and  his  party.  He  went  up ; 
lie  saw  the  papers ;  they  were  freely  exhibited 
to  him.  What  did  he  see  ?  what  was  exhibited 
to  him  ?  what  were  the  papers  ?  He  went  up 
for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  the  warrant 
that  he  himself  had  issued'should  be  executed  and 
enforced  or  not.  He  calls  for  the  papers,  and 
they  are  shown  ;  —  what  papers  are  shown  ? 
"Why,  that  ivarrant,  and  that  warrant  alone,  was 
shown  as  authority.  The  power  of  attorney 
was  handed  him  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  commissioner's  warrant  had  a  legal  basis, 
and  was  legally  issued,  and  for  this  purpose 
only,  as  Bennett  himself  testifies  ;  solely  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  that  commissioner's 
warrant  had  been  regularly  issued.  I  know 
that  with  regard  to  Meacham,  Jennings  and 
Lowe  and  Mitchell  all  swear  that  the  power 
of  attorney  was  exhibited  to  him;  but,  Gen 
tlemen,  you  will  believe  that  man  Meacham, 
taking  into  consideration  the  circumstances 
and  probabilities,  against  a  great  many  more 
such  as  Mitchell  and  his  cronies. 

Then  again,  Dickson,  who  is  a  lawyer,  was 
sent  for ;  a  lawyer  living  there  at  Wellington ; 
he  too  a  man  taking  no  part  in  this  disturbance, 
if  any  disturbance  there  were.  He  inquires, 
the  first  thing,  for  their  authority.  The  war 
rant  was  shown  him  too,  and  the  warrant  alone. 
You  will  remember,  then,  that  to  Meacham,  the 
constable,  threatening  them  with  instant  arrest, 
the  warrant  alone  was  put  forward  as  their  au 
thority  and  protection ;  to  Bennett,  the  magis 
trate  who  issued  the  warrant  for  their  arrest, 
and  who  came  up  to  see  if  he  should  not  enforce 
the  service  of  his  process,  the  commissioner's 
warrant  alone  was  put  forward  as  their  au 
thority  and  protection,  with  a  casual  reference 
to  the  power  of  attorney  as  its  basis  ;  to  Dick- 
son,  the  lawyer  who  was  called  in  by  them, 
and  sought  to  be  employed  as  their  legal  ad 
viser,  the  warrant  alone  is  spread  out  as  the 
broad  platform  upon  which  he  is  invited  to 
stand  with  them.  Dickson  read  it  carefully 
through;  observed  that  there  was  no  seal;  he 
did  n't  observe  that  little  quirk  there,  which  the 
District- Attorney  said  had  escaped  his  notice, 
until  his  attention  was  particularly  called  to  it 
the  other  day,  and  would  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  almost  any  one.  Dickson  remarked, 
that  every  thing  seemed  to  be  regular  about 
the  Avarrant  except  the  lack  of  a  seal.  Lowe 
replied  that  it  was  not  customary  or  necessary 
to  have  seals  to  this  kind  of  papers.  He,  being 
an  officer  accustomed  to  the  service  of  such 
kind  of  writs,  might  naturally  be  supposed  to 
know  what  was  necessary  to  their  validity.  And 
now  when  Mr.  Dickson  came,  thus  sent  for  to 
be  employed  as  their  counsel,  how  came  Lowe 
and  Jennings  to  exhibit  to  him  this  warrant 
alone,  if  it  be  true  that  such  a  transfer  of  cus 
tody  had  taken  place  as  Lowe  alleges  V 

Other  parties  came  up  too.  Patton  was 
there.  You  saw  him  on  the  stand ;  an  intelli 
gent  man,  a  man  likely  to  have  influence  in 


the  crowd.  They  saw  this,  and  were  desirous 
to  satisfy  him  of  the  legality  of  their  process, 
and  of  their  right  to  holcl  John.  And  for  the 
purpose  of  doing  this,  what  paper  did  they  ex 
hibit  to  him?  Why,  this  warrant,  and  this 
warrant  alone  !  In  reading  the  warrant,  he 
noticed  that  it  purported  to  have  been  sworn 
out  by  Anderson  Jennings,  without  stating  what 
relation  the  said  Jennings  claimed  to  sustain  to 
the  fugitive ;  and  when,  on  Patton's  asking  him 
if  he  was  the  owner  of  the  boy,  he  replied  that 
he  was,  without  giving  his  name ;  and  before 
Patton  had  learned  his  name  from  any  source, 
Patton  was  necessarily  left  to  infer  that  Ander 
son  Jennings  was  the  owner.  And  as  he  did 
not  —  he  says  so  upon  his  oath  —  so  much  as 
hear  of  a  power  of  attorney  at  any  time  during 
that  day,  nor  at  any  time  subsequent  or  previ 
ous,  till  he  heard  of  it  and  saw  it  presented  on 
the  first  of  these  trials,  there  was  no  supposition 
left  him  but  that,  as  Lowe  said,  he  held  the 
boy,  and  had  the  owner  along  as  one  of  his 
assistants,  instead  of  acting  himself  as  the  assist 
ant  of  this  man  Jennings,  who  claims  at  one  time 
to  be  owner,  at  another  to  be  the  agent,  and 
at  another  to  act  only  irresponsibly,  out  of  pure 
neighborly  regard,  just  as  he  thinks  he  can  best 
carry  his  points.  No  attempt  was  made  to  ex 
hibit  to  Patton  any  authority  beside  the  war 
rant,  or  any  person  as  the  custodian  other  than 
Lowe.  Now,  how  can  anybody  reconcile  this 
with  Lowe's  story  of  a  transfer  of  custody  ? 
Again,  as  the  affair  progressed,  and  as  night 
approached,  these  men  growing  anxious  to  get 
away,  it  was  proposed  to  them  to  go  below  and 
show  their  authority  —  to  read  it  —  to  the 
crowd,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  crowd  see 
that  if  they  made  any  resistance,  or  interfered 
in  any  way  to  interrupt  the  return  of  the  pro 
cess,  they  would  be  acting  illegally.  The  prop 
osition  was  finally  accepted,  and  then  who 
went  ?  Jenninys,  —  to  whom  Lowe  swears  he 
had  long  ago  surrendered  all  his  authority,  and 
in  whose  custody  alone  the  boy  now  was  ?  Oh, 
no ;  but  Mr.  Loioe,  the  pompous  Deputy-Marshal 
of  the  United  States  of  North  America !  And 
what  paper  did  he  take  with  him  to  read  ?  The 
power  of  attorney  V  Of  course  not ;  but  the 
identical  warrant  which  had  been  kept  in  such 
industrious  activity  throughout  the  entire  after 
noon.  They  passed  out  the  back  door  —  Patton 
and  Meacham  had  promised  to  see  him  safely 
out  and  back  —  to  the  south  of  the  tavern,  on 
to  the  steps  of  the  drug-store  [Mr.  BACKUS 
here  exhibited  a  diagram  to  the  jury],  and  the 
paper  was  read  to  the  crowd.  What  paper 
was  read  ?  Why,  if  Jacob  K.  Lowe  tells  you 
the  truth  when  he  says  that  en  Jennings's  arri 
val  he  transferred  the  entire  custody  and  con 
trol  of  John  to  him —  to  Jennings —  and  after 
that  Jennings  alone  held  him,  and  held  him,  of 
course,  only  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney, 
no  paper  but  the  power  of  attorney  could  have 
been  read,  unless  the  intention  was  to  perpetrate 
a  solemn  hoax  upon  the  crowd.  Now  Lowe  says 


156 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


he  can't  remember  which  was  read ;  that  he  had 
both  papers  with  him,  and  that  Patton  read  one 
and  began  to  read  the  other,  and  then  he  saw  the 
rush  into  the  house,  and  knew  that  foul  play 
would  be  used,  and  so  snatched  the  second  paper 
away  from  Patton,  and  ran  into  the  house  and  up 
to  the  room.  Now  Patton,  the  man  that  read 
whatever  was  read  to  the  crowd,  swears  most 
unequivocally  and  positively  that  the  warrant 
was  handed  to  him  to  read,  and  that  he  read  it 
and  handed  it  back  again ;  and  that  he  saw  no 
other  paper  in  Lowe's  possession ;  that  none 
other  was  handed  or  offered  to  him  to  be  read, 
and  that  he  neither  read,  nor  began  to  read, 
nor  thought  of  reading  any  other.  Cowles 
stood  next  to  Patton,  and  looked  over  his 
shoulder  while  he  read;  and  he  says  that  it 
was  the  warrant  that  was  read,  and  the  warrant 
only,  and  that  no  other  paper  was  offered  or 
shown,  and- this  Mr.  Cowles  is  a  gentleman  who 
certainly  has  intelligence  enough  to  know  what 
he  is  testifying  to,  and  integrity  enough  to  tell 
the  whole  truth,  as  any  one  would  be  satisfied 
at  a  glance ;  which,  as  I  have  already  said,  is 
equally  true  of  Mr.  Patton.  And  Patton  com 
mented  on  the  lack  of  a  seal  in  the  hearing  of 
the  crowd,  and  Bennett  was  near  by  and  un 
derstood  what  was  read,  and  says  it  was  the 
warrant  and  the  warrant  only.  Can  you  then 
have  any  doubt,  Gentlemen,  that  Lowe  was 
mistaken  about  that  transfer  —  to  use  the 
mildest  phrase  —  and  that  John  continued  to 
be  in  his  custody  down  to  the  very  moment  of 
the  rescue  ?  You  cannot  doubt  which  paper 
was  read  to  the  crowd,  or  that  it  was  the  paper 
under  and  by  virtue  of  which  the  boy  was 
held ;  and  that  when  Lowe,  at  the  close  of  the 
reading,  commanded  the  crowd,  in  the  name  of 
the  United  States,  to  disperse,  and  allow  him 
to  complete  the  return  of  his  process,  he  did  so, 
not  as  a  private  citizen,  and  the  assistant  of 
Anderson  Jennings,  but  as  a  Deputy-Marshal 
of  the  United  States,  acting  —  as  he  claimed  — 
under  and  by  virtue  of  that  Commissioner's 
warrant  which  had  just  been  read.  And  if, 
at  the  close  of  the  reading  of  this  warrant,  the 
custody  was  still  in  Lowe,  it  certainly  was  at 
the  time  of  the  rescue,  which  was  only  five  or 
ten  minutes  later,  during  which  Patton  was 
constantly  with  Lowe,  and  no  transfer  in  the 
mean  time  is  claimed  to  have  been  made.  What 
ever,  then,  was  true  as  to  the  party  in  whose 
custody  John  was  at  the  time  of  the  reading  of 
that  paper  down  there  in  the  crowd  in  front  of 
that  drug  shop,  was  equally  true  at  the  time 
John  passed  out  of  the  house,  ten  minutes  or 
less  afterwards.  And  I  say  to  you,  Gentle 
men,  that  you  cannot  hesitate  one  moment  in 
coming  to  the  conclusion  —  and  I  care  not 
where  your  political  biases  are,  or  what  your 
inclinations  arc  —  your  intellect  will  force  you 
to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  John  was  res 
cued,  if  rescued  at  all,  not  from  the  custody  of 
Anderson  Jennings,  but  from  the  custody  of 
Jacob  K.  Lowe;  and  if  that  be  so,  the  allega 


tion  of  the  indictment  is  not  met ;  the  rescue 
was  a  different  one  from  that  alleged,  and  the 
prosecution  must  of  necessity  fail. 

But,  Gentlemen,  there  still  remains  to  be 
considered  another  phase  of  this  case,  and  that 
has  reference  to  the  agency  of  the  defendant  in 
the  rescue,  be  it  what  it  may  have  been.  Now 
the  proof  shows  that  there  was  a  crowd  there 
at  Wellington  surrounding  that  house,  com 
mencing  a  comparatively  small  crowd,  called 
together  many  of  them  by  the  fire  on  the  oppo 
site  side  of  the  street  by  which  the  interests  of 
many  in  that  place  had  suffered  severely  — 
you  see  by  the  diagram  where  it  was  —  but 
when  the  rumor  became  prevalent  that  there 
was  a  negro  there  in  the  hands  of  Southerners, 
on  his  way  to  the  South,  and  that  rumor  was 
reiterated  by  the  parties  coming  in  from  Ober- 
lin,  and  the  word  went  out  through  the  crowd 
that  it  was  a  case  of  kidnapping,  and  that  a 
warrant  had  been  issued  for  the  arrest  of  the 
parties  having  the  boy  in  custody  as  kidnappers, 
the  crowd  began  to  gather  about  the  hotel,  and 
kept  increasing  till  I  think  Jennings  was  able 
to  count  a  thousand  —  though  that  is  some 
five  hundred  more  than  any  one  else  estimated 
it  at.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  indica 
tions  were  such  as  to  inspire  the  men  who  had 
John  in  custody  with  the  apprehension  that 
there  might  be  a  rescue.  I  am  not  disposed  to 
question  this.  And  these  men  were  thus  kept 
there  from  dinner-time  till  six  and  a  half  or 
seven  o'clock.  Now  whether  John  may  have 
been  forcibly  withdrawn  from  the  custody  of 
these  Southerners,  headed  by  Lowe  the  mar 
shal,  or  whether  such  intimidations  were 
brought  to  bear  upon  them  as  to  induce  them 
to  let  John  go, — in  a  legal  view  matters  noth 
ing.  Unquestionably  it  would  be  a  rescue  in 
either  case.  Jt  may  be  conceded,  then,  on  this 
testimony  here,  ^that  so  far  as  a  rescue  could 
take  place  from  the  custody  of  the  marshal, 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  a  rescue 
did  take  place  there.  But  whether  such  a 
rescue  could  have  any  effect  upon  this  de 
fendant  would  depend  first  upon  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  rescue  proved  was  the  rescue 
charged  in  the  indictment.  If  the  rescue 
proved  was  from  a  custody  other  than  that 
charged,  the  defendant  must  go  acquit  so  far 
as  this  trial  is  concerned.  But  I  propose  to 
discuss  the  question  whether  he  took  part  in 
the  rescue  of  John  from  the  custody  of  any 
human  being  there  that  day.  And  I  say 
without  hesitation,  that  you  must  agree  with 
me,  that  the  prosecution  has  utterly  failed  to 
prove  the  case  as  it  must  be  proved  on  a 
criminal  trial.  I  know  there  has  been  testi 
mony  here  such  as  might  lead  a  shrewd 
Yankee  to  guess  that  Langston  might  have  had 
something  more  to  do  with  the  rescue  than  he 
ought  to  have  had  ;  but  while  he  was  guessing 
so,  five  others  would  guess  that  if  Langston's 
counsels  had  been  followed,  there  would  have 
been  no  rescue  there  that  day,  and  only  legal 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  KESCTJE. 


157 


measures  attempted.  And  although  an  "  Afri 
can  sun  may  have  burned  upon  him"  or  upon 
some  of  his  ancestors,  thank  God,  the  defend 
ant  has  at  least  one  remnant  of  a  right  yet  left 
him,  and  that  is  the  same  right  to  justice  in 
this  trial  before  this  Anglo-Saxon  jury  that  any 
one  of  their  own  color  would  have.  And  the 
jury  must  find  him  proven  guilty^  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  and  that  his  action  can  be 
accounted  for  upon  no  other  hypothesis  than 
that  of  guilt,  or  else  they  must  acquit  him.  If 
there  is  any  other  possible  hypothesis,  you 
must  accept  it  in  preference  to  that  of  his 
guilt,  and  acquit  him;  and  they  need  not  be 
evenly  balanced  to  demand  this  at  your  hands ; 
there  must  be  a  preponderance ;  and  not  only 
that,  but  the  proof  must  be  so  clear  that  not  a 
reasonable  doubt  can  remain. 

Now  there  are  two  hypotheses  here,  either 
of  which  will  account  for  his  presence  in 
that  crowd.  First,  that  he  was  there  to  effect 
the  rescue,  law  or  no  law;  and  second,  that  he 
was  attracted  there  as  hundreds  of  others  were, 
by  the  cry  of  kidnapping,  having  known  the 
suspicious  conduct  of  these  parties  in  and  about 
Oberlin  for  some  time  immediately  previous. 
You  know  well,  Gentlemen,  that  numbers  of 
men  went  from  Oberlin  to  Wellington,  actuated 
by  this  understanding  of  the  case;  and  that 
others  went  out  of  mere  curiosity ;  and  whether 
they  hindered  or  not,  had  no  sort  of  purpose  of 
aiding  the  rescue;  and  the  Government  has 
been  compelled  to  put  witness  after  witness 
upon  the  stand,  who  swear  that  they  were  such 
persons,  and  were  as  much  in  the  crowd  as  this 
defendant,  and,  so  far  as  their  acts  went,  seve 
ral  of  them  are  vastly  more  open  to  the  charge 
of  aiding  in  the  rescue  than  he.  Now  we  say 
to  you,  that  the  same  motives  which  took  them 
took  this  defendant  —  curiosity  ;  some  sympa 
thy  perhaps  —  much  more  I  should  hope  than 
some  of  these  had.  I  say  that  this  defendant, 
my  client,  went  there  out  of  curiosity,  interest, 
sympathy,  and  I  hope,  too,  with  a  determina 
tion  that,  if  this  man  had  been  spirited  away 
unlawfully,  he  would  bare  his  arm  and  strike 
if  need,  and  employ  physical  force  to  any  nec 
essary  extent,  but  that  the  outrage  should  be 
averted.  There  is  no  proof,  however,  that  he 
used  or  advised  anv  degree  of  physical  force 
whatever,  illegal  as  it  has  been  proven  here  the 
arrest  and  custody  were.  But  it  would  seem 
that  he  supposed  the  custody  to  have  the  sanc 
tion  of  law.  There  is  no  proof  as  to  what  his 
motives  or  his  intentions  were,  but  I  hope,  and 
believe  they  were  those  of  an  honest  MAX, 
and  that  he  meant  to  prevent  an  outrage  if  he 
found  one  threatened,  at  any  cost,  and  by  the 
most  effective  means  within  his  reach.  I  should 
be  ashamed  of  him  if  it  were  not  so.  You 
would  be  ashamed  of  him.  You  would  be 
ashamed  of  yourselves  if,  in  a  like  emergen 
cy,  this  were  not  true  of  you.  But  cer 
tainly  there  is  no  proof  that  he  meant  to  break 
any  law,  and  we  say  his  course  was  marked  out 


by  a  determination  to  adhere  strictly  to  legal 
measures.  His  object  was  to  ascertain  whether 
these  men  had  seized  John  legally  —  with  a 
legal  process.  And  we  say  that  you  will  find 
him,  if  you  will  follow  him  step  by  step  from 
the  time  he  left  Oberlin,  or  is  supposed  to 
have  left  there  —  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  he  came  from  there  at  all  —  you  will  find 
his  course  characterized  all  the  way  it  is  trace 
able,  by  advice  for  the  pursuit  of  legal  means 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  by  what  author 
ity  John  was  held.  What  he  wanted  all  the 
way,  and  what  he  determined  to  have,  was 
light  upon  the  subject,  that  he  might  know  un 
der  what  circumstances  and  by  what  means 
John  had  been  borne  so  suspiciously  away.  I 
say,  then,  here  are  two  hypotheses ;  the  one 
that  of  the  Government,  that  he  went  there  for 
the  purpose  of  rescuing  John  whether  he  was 
held  rightfully  or  wrongfully,  —  I  must  not  use 
these  terms  lest  they  may  seem  to  have  a  moral 
bearing,  and  in  this  case  there  is  a  very  wide 
difference  between  the  legal  and  the  moral  view. 
I  will  say,  then,  legally  or  illegally.  And  the  other 
is,  that  he  only  sought  to  ascertain  the  character 
of  the  custody ;  and  we  say,  that  his  whole  en 
deavor  was  to  ascertain  whether  these  men,  who 
had  John  in  custody,  held  him  by  legal  or  illegal 
authority.  You  are  to  say  which  is  the  true 
hypothesis.  If  the  testimony  leaves  any 
reasonable  doubt  on  your  mind  as  to 
whether  he  was  actuated  by  the  one  motive  or 
the  other;  if  you  should  find  even,  upon  the 
whole,  that  the  testimony  going  to  establish  the 
proposition  of  the  Government  were  the  strong 
er,  but  you  could  still  see  that  there  was  rea 
son  to  some  extent  for  doubt ;  that  it  might  be 
after  all  that  what  Langston  professed  over 
and  over  again  was  true,  that  he  wished  only 
legal  measures  to  be  pursued ;  —  why,  then, 
you  are  bound  by  your  oaths  to  bring  in  a  ver 
dict  of  acquittal.  Yes,  and  much  more  firmly 
bound  than  by  that  other  obligation  of  your 
oath,  which  will  compel  you  under  this  statute 
—  objectionable  as  this  statute  is,  outraging  the 
feelings  of  every  man  who  cares  an  iota  for  the 
rights  of  his  fellows  —  this  statute  which  has 
begotten  and  can  beget  nothing  but  trouble 
and  turmoil  and  disturbance;  —  I  say^  your 
obligation  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  is 
tenfold  stronger  than  that  to  bring  in  one  of 
condemnation ;  for  the  one  will  have  only  the 
approbation  of  the  judgment,  and  the  other 
has  superadded  to  this,  the  gratification  that 
must  prevail  in  the  breast  of  every  man  of  you 
that  you  are  not  forced  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of 
guilty  against  that  man  who  has  been  guilty  of 
no  moral  crime,  who  has  been  guilty  of  no  self 
ishness,  who  has  sinned  not  against  his  con 
science  or  his  God,  but  against  the  provisions 
of  a  law  only,  which  denies  to  men  of  his  color 
the  rights  of  manhood.  Well,  Gentlemen,  what 
is  the  testimony  upon  which  the  prosecution 
relics  to  establish  the  guilt  of  the  defendant 
Langston  ?  Why,  you  must  have  seen  that  a 


158 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


large  portion  of  the  testimony  —  perhaps  it  is 
the  "  nine  tenths  "  to  which  Mr.  District- Attor 
ney  alluded,  and  which  he  himself  character 
ized  as  "  utterly  useless,"  in  which  I  heartily 
concur  with  him  —  has  been  of  no  service  to 
the  Government,  but  your  time  has  been  mostly 
occupied  in  giving  attention  to  what  the  crowd 
at  Oberlin  said  and  did ;  what  the  crowd  on 
the  way  to  Wellington  said  and  did ;  and  what 
the  crowd  at  Wellington  said  and  did,  which  is 
of  no  pertinence  to  the  issue,  and  has  no  com 
petency  here  unless  to  show  that  what  the 
crowd  said  and  did,  Langston  said  and  did. 
This  might  be  done  by  first  showing  that  there 
was  concert  of  action  in  the  crowd,  or  in  that 
part  of  the  crowd  with  which  Langston  un 
mistakably  identified  himself;  but  you  must 
find  the  connection,  you  must  find  the  combi 
nation,  you  must  see  that  they  had  confede 
rated  together  for  a  common  and  definite  pur 
pose.  I  do  not  claim,  and  it  is  idle  for  any  one 
to  claim,  that  to  show  such  a  combination  it 
must  be  shown  that  they  had  an  organization, 
a  formal  meeting,  with  a  moderator  and  secre 
tary,  or  adopted  any  special  rules  or  resolu 
tions.  But  what  I  do  claim  is,  that  before  you 
can  charge  one  man  with  the  acts  of  others, 
you  must  show  that  that  man,  whom  you  seek 
to  affect,  has  united  in  purpose  with  the  other 
men  whose  conduct  is  given  in  evidence ;  for 
short  of  that  it  would  be  an  outrage  on  his 
rights  to  say  that  he  was  to  be  affected  by 
any  thing  that  was  said  or  done  by  individ 
uals  chancing  to  stand  within  a  given  num 
ber  of  feet  of  where  he  stood.  This  testimony, 
then,  Gentlemen,  that  has  been  permitted  to  go 
to  you  by  the  Court,  under  the  pledge  of  the 
District-Attorney  that,  before  he  closed  his 
case,  he  would  show  such  combination  as  would 
charge  upon  Langston  all  the  acts  of  the  crowd, 
—  which  indulgence  of  the  Court  was  right,  of 
course,  upon  the  conditions  made,  but  not  oth 
erwise,  —  this  testimony,  I  say,  if  you  will  scan 
it  closely,  it  seems  to  me,  can  produce  in  the 
.  mind  of  no  man  of  you  the  conviction  that  this 
crowd,  including  the  defendant,  did  confederate 
by  words  or  communication  of  thoughts  for  the 
accomplishment  of  an  unlawful  purpose.  And, 
again,  I  say,  the  Government  has  placed  wit 
ness  after  witness  on  that  stand,  who  were  in 
the  crowd,  who  acted  with  the  crowd,  but  who 
were  in  no  combination  with  that  part  of  the 
crowd  that  may  have  had  unlawful  purposes  in 
view.  If,  then,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  it  be 
true  that  Bennett  was  there  in  that  crowd  for  a 
lawful  purpose,  that  Meachani  was  there  in  that 
crowd  for  a  lawful  purpose,  that  Howk  was 
there  in  that  crowd  for  a  lawful  purpose,  that 
Marks  was  there  in  that  crowd  for  a  lawful  pur 
pose,  that  Wack  was  there  in  that  crowd  for  a 
lawful  purpose,  that  E.  S.  Lyman,  Halbert, 
Barber,  and  even  Norris  A.  Wood,  and  dozens 
of  others,  all  apparently  more  or  less  active 
participants  in  some,  at  least,  of  the  actions  of 
the  crowd,  beside  the  two  hundred  or  three 


hundred,  brought  there  by  the  fire,  were  all 
there  for  lawful  purposes,  taking  no  voluntary 
part  in  any  unlawful  proceedings,  —  ihen  I  sub 
mit  that  this  defendant  cannot  possibly  be  impli 
cated  by  the  evidence  with  the  rescue  made  by  a 
part  of  that  crowd.  While  he  stood  dumb  and  in 
active,  Wood  and  Marks  and  Wack  were  labor 
ing  in  all  possible^  ways  to  increase  the  excitement 
of  the  populace,  by  putting  up  ladders,  by  shout 
ing,  "  Here  he  goes  !  "  "  This  way !  "  "  Keep  a 
sharp  look-out !  "  etc.,  doing  much  more  to  dis 
turb  the  peace  and  promote  such  excitement  as 
would  prompt  to  the  rescue,  each  one  of  them, 
than  a  score  of  men  like  this  defendant.  The 
testimony  on  this  point  is  clear,  unanimous,  and 
unmistakable.  I  say,  then,  if  these  were  all 
there,  thus  active,  and  actuated  only  by  lawful 
motives,  then,  to  say  the  least,  this  defendant 
may  have  been  in  the  same  crowd  and  actuated 
with  an  equally  lawful  purpose  ;  and,  more  than 
that,  I  say  the  testimony  abundantly  shows  that 
he  was  so.  I  say,  therefore,  proof  of  what  was 
done  in  the  crowd  cannot  affect  this  defendant, 
Langston,  without  additional  proof  that  he  was 
connected  with  that  part  of  that  crowd  which 
had  an  illegal  purpose  in  view,  and  that  illegal 
purpose,  the  rescue  of  John  from  lawful  cus 
tody.  Now  what  portion  of  that  crowd,  Gentle 
men,  did  participate  in  any  illegal  purpose  with 
regard  to  the  rescue  of  John  from  lawful  custo 
dy,  as  it  is  claimed  ?  I  am  not  going  into  any 
detailed  examination  of  the  testimony  on  this 
point,  for,  if  I  did,  —  I — should  —  wake  up  — 
my  old  friend  there  (one  of  the  jurors),  [laugh 
ter]  which  I  do  not  wish  to  do !  But  I  wish  to  say, 
in  brief,  that,  so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  all 
fhe  persons  in  that  whole  crowd  who  purposed 
to  rescue  John,  in  violation  of  law,  would  not 
exceed  fifty.  Now,  then,  upon  what  testimony 
does  the  Government  rely  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  Langston  was  connected  in  pur 
pose  and  intent  with  this  insignificant  minority 
of  that  crowd ;  —  the  few  who  were  bent  upoti 
doing  what  they  had  no  legal  right  to  do? 
Why,  you  have  heard  the  testimony ;  it  has 
been  detailed  and  presented  to  you  by  my 
friend  and  associate,  Mr.  GRISWOLD,  in  a  very 
clear  and  able  manner,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  go  into  it  at  length  again. 

Jennings^is  the  first  witness  called.  What  is 
his  testimony  ?  I  want  you  to  scan  his  testi 
mony  closely,  and  notice  how  poor  his  memory 
is  on  some  points,  and  how  confusedly  stubborn 
it  is  on  others.  How  is  it  that  Langston  is  first 
seen  in  that  crowd  between  four  and  five 
o'clock?  Where  he  came  from  or  for  what 

Surpose  he  came,  the  testimony  does  not  show, 
ow  if  there  is  any  witness  who  has  sworn  that 
he  saw  Langston  at  Oberlin  that  day  prior  to 
the  rescue,  it  has  escaped  my  notice.  If  any 
one  has  so  sworn,  if  it  should  turn  out  so,  all 
there  is  of  it  is  that  he  was  at  Oberlin  in  the 
forenoon,  and  at  Wellington  at  some  three,  four, 
or  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon ;  but  how  he 
got  to  Wellington,  or  for  what  purpose  he  came, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


159 


docs  not  appear.  But  what  did  he  do  after  he 
got  there  'i  I  don't  know  but  I  may  as  well 
take  Lowe  for  my  text.  He  says  that  after  he 
and  his  party  got  into  the  upper  story,  he 
looked  out  of  the  window  and  saw  Langston  in 
the  crowd,  and  as  he  had  known  him  for  years 
in  Columbus,  and  knew  that  he  was  a  well  dis 
posed,  law-abiding,  and  reasonable  man,  and 
just  such  a  man  as  he  wanted  at  such  a  time  — 
just  such  a  man,  Gentlemen,  Lowe  swears  he  had 
for  years  known  him  to  be,  as  we  now  claim  him 
to  le  —  he  sent  for  him,  or  said  in  some  one's 
hearing  that  he  wished  he  could  see  him ;  and 
so  John  Watson  —  not  our  worthy  member  of 
the  Legislature  to  be  sure  —  though  I  thought 
it  was  he  that  was  indicted  until  I  was  intro 
duced  to  this  other  gentleman,  —  by  no  means 
a  less  respectable  one,  although  happening  to 
have  a  deeper  colored  skin, — Watson  went 
down  to  find  Langston.  Barber  says  when 
Watson  found  Langston,  Langston  had  his 
hand  on  a  gun.  He  can't  say  whether  the  gun 
belonged  to  Langston  or  to  some  one  else  ;  but 
Langston  took  his  hand  off  from  it,  and  went 
up  without  it.  He  may  have  handed  it  to  some 
one  else  to  keep  for  him,  or  he  may  have  re 
turned  it  to  its  owner.  The  Court  will  tell  you. 
Gentlemen,  that  you  are  here  —  as  every 
where —  bound  to  infer  that  the  defendant's 
connection  with  that  gun  was  innocent,  in  the 
absence  of  sufficient  proof  to  establish  without 
reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  criminal.  And  as 
this  is  the  only  occasion  during  the  entire  day 
when  arms  of  any  sort  were  seen  at  all  in  his 
possession,  the  balance  of  probability  alone  will 
oblige  you  to  believe  that  this  was  not  his  gun, 
and  that  he  was  only  temporarily  leaning  or 
resting  his  hand  upon  it.  Watson  goes  back 
and  Langston  goes  with  him,  up  to  the  room 
where  Lowe  was.  Lowe  tells  you  that  when 
Langston  came  up  they  talked  together  about 
matters  generally.  Lowe  says  he  explained  to 
him  how  things  were,  and  explained  the  papers 
to  him  —  can't  remember  that  he  showed  him 
any  papers  ;  it  is  no  matter  whether  they  were 
shown  or  not.  Lowe  says  Langstou  expressed 
himself  satisfied  ;  the  papers  were  either  shown 
or  "explained"  to  him;  and  Lowe,  counting 
upon  the  knowledge  that  he  had  of  the  defend 
ant  by  means  of  a  long-standing  acquaintance, 
asked  him  to  use  his  influence  with  the  crowd 
for  peace ;  and  he  says  he  promised  he  would, 
and  expressed  himself  in  favor  of  legal  meas 
ures.  At  the  instance,  then,  of  Lowe,  as  Lowe 
says,  Langston  went  down  to  the  crowd,  and 
after  having  been  gone  some  twenty  minutes, 
returned.  Now  this  first  conversation  was  in 
the  room  where  John  was. 

Whether  there  were  any  persons  present 
and  listening  I  do  not  now  know.  It  is  very 
probably  there  were ;  but  thus  much  is  per 
fectly  evident,  that  the  whole  tenor  of  that  con 
versation,  so  far  as  John  was  concerned,  was  to 
the  effect  that  he  (Langston)  was  satisfied  with 
the  state  of  the  case  as  shown  by  Lowe.  Lowe 


requested  him  to  give  his  aid  in  quieting  the 
crowd  and  to  help  them  get  away  with  their 
prisoner,  and  Lowe  swears  —  whatever  Jen 
nings  or  Davis  or  Wheeler  may  have  dreamed 
—  that  he  said  he  would,  and  appeared  to 
speak  candidly  and  honestly.  And  1  wish  you 
to  observe,  therefore,  that  in  this  conversation, 
neither  Mr.  Jennings  nor  any  other  man  could 
have  heard  Langston  say  to  Lowe,  that  he 
would  not  assist  him,  but  would  have  John, 
papers  or  no  papers  ;  for  if  he  had  so  told  Lowe, 
most  certainly  his  ears  are  not  so  short  that  he 
would  have  been  left  with  the  conviction  that 
Langston  was  acting  in  good  faith  in  going 
down  to  the  crowd  for  the  professed  pur 
pose  of  using  his  influence  in  Lowe's  behalf; 
I  wish  you  also  to  notice  that  Lowe  s  wears  .that 
Langston  was  up  stairs,  to  his  knowledge,  only 
twice  on  that  afternoon ;  that  the  first  time, 
when  their  conversation  was  held  in  the  room 
where  John  and  others  were,  the  tenor  of  the 
conversation  was  such  as  to  leave  on  Lowe's 
mind  the  most  favorable  impression  of  Lang- 
ston's  disposition  to  assist  him  in  retaining  the 
custody  of  the  negro,  and  that  therefore  no  such 
thing  could  possibly  have  been  said  during  this 
conversation  by  Langston  as  has  been  attribu 
ted  to  him  by  Jennings  and  Davis,  and  perhaps 
others.  Lowe  swears  that  in  pursuance  of  his 
own  request  and  Langston's  promise,  Langston 
did  go  down  to  the  crowd,  and  that  in  about 
twenty  minutes  he  returned,  and  taking  Lowe 
aside  into  the  little  room  adjoining,  where  they 
two  were  alone  together,  and  no  one  else  was 
present  or  in  hearing,  Langston  told  him  that 
he  had  been  using  his  influence  with  the  crowd 
to  dissuade  them  from  attempting  any  force  or 
other  illegal  measures.  Did  Langston  tell  the 
truth  when  he  said  this  ?  Do  not  Bennett  and 
Howk  and  Wheeler,  all  Government  witnesses, 
tell  you  that  about  this  time  —  and  to  locate  it, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  passage  of 
the  train,  which  Lowe  says  passed  during  their 
first  interview,  and  its  regular  time  at  that  sta 
tion  is  said  to  have  been  5:13 —  do  not  these 
Government  witnesses  all  tell  you  frankly  and 
explicitly  that  about  this  time  they  found  Lang 
ston  in  the  crowd,  recommending  peaceable 
measures,  and  urging  that  there  should  be  no 
appeal  to  force ;  saying  that  he  had  been  up 
stairs  and  had  learned  by  what  authority  the 
negro  was  held  ?  And  do  they  not  further 
swear  that  he  expressed  his  belief  that  the 
papers  were  legal,  and  that  the  only  proper 
course  was  for  them,  if  they  wanted  to  test  the 
question  whether  John  was  or  was  not  legally 
held,  to  go  to  Elyria  and  procure  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus ;  that  he  proposed  himself,  if 
they  would  furnish  a  horse  and  buggy,  to  go 
and  procure  that  writ  ?  And  now  it  is  at 
tempted  to  be  established  that  he  said  it  was 
too  late  to  go  to  Elyria,  for  troops  had  been  sent 
for,  and  before  they  could  get  back  from  Ely 
ria,  the  troops  would  be  there  by  the  train  ;  — 
when  the  train  had  already  passed,  while  he  was 


160 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


holding  tkatjirst  conversation  with  Lowe !  You 
see,  then,  how  utterly  unjust  it  is  to  claim  that 
he  was  serving  a  double  purpose ;  that  he  was 
communicating  the  information  that  he  had  de 
rived  up  stairs  from  Lowe,  and  at  the  same 
time  covertly  advising  the  crowd  not  to  follow 
those  peaceful  means,  which  he  had  himself  all 
along  recommended. 

Now,  it  is  said  that  he  and  Patton  came  out 
about  the  same  time  —  or  Barber,  who  swears 
to  it,  says  he  saw  them  coming  from  the  direc 
tion  of  the  back  yard  ;  that  he,  standing  in  the 
lane  (see  diagram),  saw  them  coming  along 
there,  approaching  him  from  the  direction  of  the 
door  leading  up  stairs ;  did  n't  know  whether 
they  came  out  of  the  door  together ;  did  n't 
know,  in  fact,  as  they  came  out  of  the  door, 
either  of  them,  at  all  at  that  time.  What  he 
does  know,  is  that  he  saw  them  approaching  him, 
moving  outward  toward  the  crowd  in  the  street, 
Patton  some  fifteen  feet  ahead  of  Langston,  and 
that  Patton,  addressing  himself  to  the  crowd, 
said,  that  the  only  legal  way  to  inquire  into  the 
custody  was  by  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  from 
Elyria,  but  it  was  too  late  then  to  go  for  one, 
and  they  must  do  as  they  pleased.  He  says 
that  Langston  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  pro 
clamation  ;  does  n't  know  as  he  even  heard  it, 
or  was  near  enough  to  hear  it.  That  Langston 
stopped  some  fifteen  or  eighteen  feet  back  of 
Patton,  and  went  to  talking  with  persons  there, 
advising  the  use  of  peaceable  and  legal  meas 
ures.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  allude  to  all  the 
testimony  on  this  point.  Here  you  have  Ben 
nett  and  Howk  and  Wheeler  and  Barber  per 
haps,  and  others  who  all  swear  to  the  unvaried 
tenor  of  Langston's  conversation  and  conduct, 
as  not  only  passively,  but  actually  and  positively 
law-abiding.  After  having  been  absent  some 
twenty  minutes,  he  returned  and  called  Lowe 
out  into  the  little  room  at  the  head  of  the  stairs. 
They  went  into  that  room  and  sat  down  on  the 
bed  together,  and  there  they  talked,  no  one  be 
side  themselves  being  present.  There  was  no 
conversation  on  this  occasion  in  the  room  where 
the  negro  was,  but  all  that  was  said  was  said 
while  they  were  alone  together  in  the  little  room 
adjoining  the  stairway,  and  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  ears  of  those  who  were  in  the  room  with 
John.  Well,  Mr.  Lowe  himself  tells  you  what 
transpired  in  this  second  (and  besides  the  one 
already  alluded  to,  during  which  the  train 
passed,  the  only)  conversation  they  had  together 
that  day.  He  tells  you  that  Langston  said  to 
him,  "  I  have  been  below,  talking  to  the  crowd, 
endeavoring  to  influence  them  to  take  a  legal 
course,  but  without  success.  They  are  deter 
mined  to  take  their  own  course."  Was  he  then 
playing  false  to  Lowe  ?  Not  unless  Bennett 
and  Howk  —  and  you  all  saw  in  Mr.  Howk's 
honest  face,  at  any  rate,  that  he  was  a  man  that 
did  n't  know  how  to  lie  —  unless  Jacob  Wheeler 
swears  false,  he  told  Lowe  the  truth.  Now, 
Lowe  tells  you  that  he  saw  Langston  but  twice 
that  day;  that  the  first  interview  broke  up 


twenty  minutes  before  the  second,  and  that  down 
to  the  last  moment  of  the  second,  he  believed 
that  Langston  was  acting  in  good  faith  in  his 
behalf,  endeavoring  to  still  the  crowd  and  per 
suade  them  to  the  use  of  peaceable  measures. 
And  that  he  was  induced  to  suspect  Langston's 
honesty  only  by  the  observation  he  made  as  he 
was  passing  out  of  the  room  at  the  close  of  this 
second  interview.  He  says  that  when  Langston 
had  urged  him,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances, 
to  get  himself  out  of  what  then  seemed  to  be  a 
dangerous  position,  by  using  his  influence  with 
Jennings  —  who  had  declared  himself  to  be  the 
owner  —  to  give  up  the  negro,  and  Lowe  had 
peremptorily  declined  making  any  such  attempt, 
Langston  rose  up  and  passed  out  rapidly,  and 
as  he  passed  out,  said,  "  Well,  we  '11  have  him, 
any  way."  Now  I  want  you  to  compare  this 
testimony  of  Lowe  with  that  of  Jennings  and 
Davis.  (Of  Davis  I  know  very  little ;  but  hav 
ing  been  privileged  with  a  longer  acquaintance 
with  Mr.  Jennings,  I  think  he  could  bring  him 
self  to  believe  almost  any  thing,  particularly 
since  he  got  that  "jabble"  on  his  head !) 

Now,  because  Jennings  testifies  to  a  thing,  I 
know  there  is  no  man  on  that  Jury  simple 
enough  to  suppose  that  it  must  necessarily  be 
true.  Not  that  Jennings,  in  telling  his  absurdi 
ties,  would  always  know  that  he  was  lying ;  he 
might  have  some  indistinct  idea  that  he  was  do 
ing  something  not  quite  in  keeping  with  the 
Code  of  Honor  down  in  Kentucky,  but  as  to 
lying,  nothing  is  surer  than  that  they  never 
taught  him  what  that  was  in  that  Church  of 
which  he  is  such  an  exemplary  member,  down 
there !  [Laughter.]  What  possible  plausibility 
is  there  for  believing  that  Jennings  and  Davis 
heard  Langston  say  to  Lowe  in  the  first  inter 
view  —  and  at  no  other  conversation  were  they 
present  —  "I  won't  help  you ;  but  we '11  havo 
him  any  how  ?  "  Mitchell  won't  swear  to  any 
such  thing ;  he  was  brought  here  for  the  ex 
press  purpose  of  swearing,  but  you  can't  fetch 
him  quite  up  to  that !  So  that  either  Jennings 
and  Davis  testify  to  what  was  not  true,  or  else 
Lowe  testifies  to  what  is  not  true.  And  Lowe 
gives  you  the  best  reason  in  the  world  for  be 
lieving  him,  for  he  declares  that  up  to  the  time 
Langston  left  the  room,  at  the  close  of  that  sec 
ond  private  interview,  he  had  entire  confidence 
that  he  was  faithfully  working  for  him.  And 
how  is  it  possible  to  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that 
he  could  have  retained  such  an  impression  if 
Langston  had  met  his  overtures  in  the  first  in 
terview  with  such  unqualified  refusal  and  re 
pugnance  as  Jennings  and  Davis  represent  ? 
But  I  know  very  well  how  these  good  easy 
souls,  and  especially  my  old  friend  Jennings, 
after  hearing  Lowe  tell  of  this  remark  of  Lang 
ston  in  the  second  interview,  might  actually  im 
agine  that  they  heard  it  too ;  and  Lowe,  unfor 
tunately,  not  having  taken  pains  to  impress  upon 
them  that  it  would  n't  do  for  them  to  swear  to 
it,  since  he  would  have  to  swear  that  it  was 
made  in  the  second  and  private  interview,  at 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


161 


which  neither  of  them  was  present,  nor  near 
enough  to  be  within  possible  earshot,  they  out 
with  it  before  it  could  be  stopped,  and  then 
there  was  nothing  but  the  "jewel  of  consisten 
cy  "  left  to  them ;  —  so  they  stick  to  it.  And 
now  with  so  strong  a  reason  for  believing  Lowe 
rather  than  Jennings  and  Davis,  isn't  your 
course  a  plain  one,  Gentlemen  ? 

There  are  other  witnesses  upon  whom  the 
prosecution  rely  to  implicate  Langston.  In  this 
confusftm  of  testimony  it  is  next  to  impossible 
to  fix  the  time  of  the  occurrences  which  are 
testified  to.  But  it  seems  to  be  clear,  that,  dur 
ing  the  earlier  part  of  the  time  Langston  was 
there,  busied  about  the  arrest  of  these  men  for 
kidnapping,  in  order  that  their  authority  might 
be  subjected  to  official  inspection,  he  was  get 
ting  up  or  helping  to  get  up  a  bond  of  indem 
nity  for  the  constable,  who,  it  seems,  was  a  lit 
tle  tender-footed  about  serving  the  warrant  that 
had  been  issued  by  Mr.  Justice  Bennett.  It  is 
said  that  Dickson  drew  up  the  bond,  and  Lang 
ston  circulated  it.  This  was  before  Lowe  sent 
for  him,  it  is  important  to  remember;  before  he 
had  any  reliable  intimation  of  the  authority 
under  and  by  virtue  of  which  they  claimed  to 
hold  John.  It  was  not  Langston  who  swore 
out  the  warrant.  The  warrant  had  been  sworn 
out,  and  the  constable  had  attempted  to  serve 
it  long  before  Langston  was  seen  anywhere  in 
that  crowd.  On  his  arrival,  he  heard  a  dispute 
about  the  legality  of  the  custody.  Patton,  or 
others,  may  have  expressed,  in  his  hearing,  a 
belief  that  the  custody  was  legal ;  but  here  was 
a  warrant  already  issued,  and  in  the  hands  of 
the  constable,  the  service  of  which  would  insure 
a  satisfactory  examination.  Making  use,  there 
fore,  of  that  common  sense,  which,  I  take  it 
upon  me  to  say,  he  showed  himself  to  be  pos 
sessed  of  in  an  enviable  degree,  he  thought  it 
on  all  accounts  best  to  have  a  legal  investiga 
tion,  that  John  might  neither  be  rescued  nor 
carried  off  without  any  one  knowing  what  sanc 
tion  there  might  be  for  either  course.  He  very 
properly  told  the  constable,  "You  have  no  right 
to  go  behind  the  warrant  in  your  hands,  and 
inquire  into  the  legality  of  its  issue  ;  your  sole 
business  is  to  serve  it."  Bring  the  men  before 
these  magistrates,  candid,  honorable  men  as 
they  are,  and  it  will  then  appear  whether  the 
custody  of  John  is  legal  or  not,  and  the  decision 
of  these  magistrates  will  or  ought  to  satisfy  the 
crowd.  Suppose  he  did  hear  something  about 
a  warrant,  and  perhaps  even  something  of  a 
power  of  attorney ;  —  he  none  the  less  justly 
demanded  a  legal,  official  investigation.  Why, 
some  of  you  must  have  heard  of  the  case  in 
Akron,  where,  a  short  time  since,  a  colored 
man  was  seized  by  certain  scoundrels,  under 
the  pretence  that  they  were  arresting  him  for 
passing  counterfeit  money ;  they  exhibited  a 
forged  warrant,  which  purported  to  have  been 
issued  by  Minor,  the  Clerk  of  the  U.  S.  Court; 
but  some  one  happening  to  look  at  it,  who  knew 
Minor's  handwriting,  detected  the  fraud,  and 

21 


the  villains  were  forced  to  release  their  prey. 
There  was  reason  enough,  then,  why  this  de 
fendant  should  say,  that  that  investigation  be 
fore  the  magistrates  ou^ht  to  proceed,  and  that 
the  crowd  should  be  satisfied  with  nothing  short 
of  it.  And  even,  Gentlemen,  if,  hearing  that 
Lowe  had  a  warrant  —  I  am  talking  now  about 
his  action  in  reference  to  the  service  of  this 
warrant,  which,  you  will  not  forget,  was  imme 
diately  after  his  arrival  in  the  crowd,  and  before 
Lowe  had  sent  for  him  to  hold  the  first  conver 
sation  —  if,  I  say,  hearing  that  Lowe  had  a 
warrant,  he  was  satisfied  in  his  own  mind ;  still, 
and  none  the  less,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the 
crowd,  and  because  he  might  be  deceived  him 
self,  and  because  the  man's  liberties  were  all  at 
stake,  was  it  not  his  unquestionable  duty  —  did 
he  not  owe  it  to  humanity  and  justice  to  do  by 
that  boy  as  you  would  have  demanded  of  him 
to  do  by  you  in  like  peril  —  to  press  that  official 
investigation,  and  to  rest  satisfied  with  nothing 
short  of  it  ?  I  know  the  District- Attorney  has 
said,  and  his  associate  may  reiterate  it,  that  it 
was  not  proper  for  the  constable  to  obey  the 
mandate  of  any  such  warrant,  or  to  attempt 
any  such  arrest.  But  suppose  Langston  hon 
estly  thought  the  law  authorized  it,  and  acted 
upon  such  honest  belief,  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  the  rights  of  all  parties,  and  paving 
the  way  for  the  escape  of  the  officer  from  the 
difficulties  that  environed  him,  if  his  papers 
were  found  to  be  right ;  —  and  if  they  were  not 
right,  the  District-Attorney  would  not  be  seen 
standing  up  here  to  claim  that  that  crowd  ought 
to  have  allowed  a  case  of  kidnapping  in  their 
midst!  —  shall  a  man  lor  such  conduct  be 
branded  by  this  Court  as  a  violator  of  the  pub 
lic  peace  and  the  rights  of  citizens  ?  A  man 
intending  only  a  lawful  course,  and  advising  it 
only  to  prevent  an  outrage  which  was  equally 
liable  to  be  perpetrated  by  either  or  both  par 
ties  ;  coming  between  them  as  a  peacemaker  to 
adjust  their  difficulties  according  to  law  —  shall 
he  be  branded  a  felon,  I  say,  and  punished  with 
the  enormities  of  the  provisions  of  this  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Act? 

But  this  attempt  to  get  the  constable  to  arrest 
failing,  afterward  you  hear  of  him  in  that  alley 
stating  that  a  habeas  corpus  from  Elyria  might 
be  obtained,  and  was,  therefore,  the  next  best 
legal  'and  peaceable  resort,  and  offering,  if  a 
horse  and  buggy  were  furnished  him,  to  go  for 
it.  And  is  i^  not  probable  then,  are  you  not 
bound  to  believe,  that  he  was  anxious  that  a 
legal  course  should  be  p'ursued ;  if  not  for  his 
own  satisfaction,  at  least  for  the  satisfaction  of 
the  more  turbulent  portion  of  the  crowd  ? 

As  I  have  already  said,  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  go  over  in  detail  all  the  testimony  that  has 
been  given  as  to  what  he  said  and  what  he  did 
in  connection  with  this  transaction.  It  has 
been  accurately  done  by  my  associate,  and 
must  be  fresh  in  your  recollection.  But  I  wish 
to  call  your  attention  now  to  the  conflict  be 
tween  the  testimony  of  the  Government  wit- 


162 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


nesses  upon  several  important  points,  for  the 
purpose  of  reminding  vou  that  it  must  be  with 
a  great  degree  of  caution  that  you  give  credit 
to  what  they  say ;  that  their  testimony  is  such 
as  plainly  to  show  that  they  have  either  forgot 
ten  what  occurred,  or  else  their  inclination  is 
such  as  to  debar  them  from  credit  at  your 
hands.  For  instance,  you  have  had  the  testi 
mony  of  Jennings  and  Bacon  as  to  the  arrange 
ment  under  which  Jennings  came  out  here  in 
pursuit  of  John.  I  frankly  confess  that  I  see 
nothing  in  the  appearance  of  this  man  Bacon, 
to  authorize  me  to  asperse  his  character  for 
truth  and  veracity,  though  I  cannot  but  regret 
that  he  could  not  employ  his  valuable  time  to 
better  advantage  than  in  hiring  some  wretch  to 
recapture  the  boy  John,  so  ardently  loving  his 
own  freedom ;  or  in  being  here  to  carry  on  this 
prosecution  against  a  man  who  sought  only  to 
keep  and  not  to  break  the  law.  I  know  that  it 
may  be  said  that  he  is  here  as  a  witness  under 
process ;  but  I  know,  too,  that  if  he  be,  as  is 
alleged,  the  owner  of  the  boy  John,  a  wave  of 
his  hand  would  doubtless  have  prevented  the 
indictment  being  found. 

Bacon  swears  that  he  promised  Jennings,  as 
the  consideration  for  attempting  the  capture  of 
the  "nigger,"  $500,  or  one  half  what  the 
"  nigger "  would  sell  for,  provided  he  brought 
him  safely  back  ;  and  otherwise  he  was  to  have 
nothing.  Pie  says  that  this  was  an  explicit 
agreement.  Jennings  swears  that  there  was 
no  arrangement  whatever  about  compensation ; 
that  he  undertook  the  return  of  this  wayward 
youth  as  a  neighborly  duty,  an  act  of  pure 
benevolence;  expected  that  his  actual  ex 
penses  would  probably  be  paid — though  for 
some  reason  they  never  have  been  yet — but 
had  no  idea  of  ever  getting  any  thing  more. 
Now  why  is  it  that  these  men,  at  the  very 
threshold  of  the  first  trial,  cross  each  other's 
path  in  this  way  ?  Do  they  not  impeach  each 
other,  or,  at  least,  one  impeach  the  other  ? 
What  credit  can  they  expect  you  to  give  them  ? 
I  verily  believe  Bacon,  for  he  appears  truthful, 
and  testifies  to  what  is  reasonable ;  but  I  am  in 
clined  as  strongly  to  distrust  Jennings,  because 
he  appears  any  thing  but  truthful,  and  talks 
any  thing  but  common  sense.  Why  does  Jen 
nings  disclaim  the  influence  of  any  definite 
number  of  pieces  of  silver  upon  his  pious  and 
neighborly  heart  ?  Can  it  be  that  that  gun 
penetrated  so  far  into  his  head  as  to  awaken 
to  activity  some  latent  moral  perceptions  of 
the  reputableness  of  "  nigger  hunting  "  as  com 
pared  with  other  walks  of  Christian  usefulness  ? 
It  is  of  course  of  no  pertinence  to  the  issue  on 
trial  what  the  terms  of  Mr.  Jennings's  engage 
ments  were ;  but  it  is  of  some  importance  to 
the  government  and  to  you,  Gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  whether  the  chief  witnesses  for  the  Govern 
ment  can  tell  the  truth  when  there  is  no  possi 
ble  inducement  to  lie ! 

On  this  trial  Mr.  Jennings  swears  that  his 
.bargain  with  Lowe  was  that  he  was  to  give 


Lowe  one  hundred  dollars,  if  he  got  the  "  nig* 
ger,"  and  pay  his  expenses  from  Columbus  to 
Oberlin  at  any  rate ;  that  he  made  the  same 
agreement  with  Davis ;  which  latter  statement 
he  afterwards  explained  by  saying  that  it  was 
to  be  one  hundred  dollars  for  both.  But  Lowe 
comes  up  and  swears  roundly  that  there  was 
no  pecuniary  arrangement  whatever  made; 
but  that  he  expected  to  charge  his  usual  price, 
which  is  $2  a  day  and  expenses ;  that  Jennings 
indeed  offered  him  a  hundred  dollars,  but  his 
incorruptible  integrity  spurned  the  bribe,  and 
so  there  was  no  definite  arrangement  made. 
Davis  says  he  never  heard  of  the  hundred 
dollars,  and  made  no  bargain;  expected  to 
charge  his  usual  fees  as  deputy-sheriff.  Isn't 
it  rather  unfortunate  that  there  should  be  such 
a  difference  of  opinion  among  these  gentlemen, 
and  especially  that  Mr.  Jennings  can't  get  any 
of  his  stories  to  jibe  with  anybody's  else  ? 

Now  there  is  another  witness  for  the  govern 
ment,  one  Sciples,  who  testifies  that  he  saw  the 
defendant  twice  on  the  afternoon  of  that  day, 
and  that  the  second  time  he  saw  him  was  on 
the  floor  of  the  second  story  with  Watson, 
some  time  about  the  middle  of  the  afternoon. 
Saw  him  only  twice,  and  the  second  time  he 
was  with  Watson  on  the  second  floor  of  the 
hotel,  and  this  was  about  the  middle  of  the 
afternoon.  But  when  recalled  to  patch  up  a 
lame  case,  he  swears  that  he  saw  him  going  up 
the  stairs  with  Watson  when  the  rush  was 
made,  immediately  —  only  a  few  moments  — 
before  the  rescue.  An  important  addition  to 
his  reminiscences,  and  a  little  remarkable  that 
he  could 'nt  think  of  it  before.  So  much  for 
his  consistency.  And  so  with  a  large  portion 
of  all  the  witnesses  for  the  Government. 

But  some  one  of  them  testifies  that  while 
Langston  was  circulating  a  bond  of  indemnity 
for  the  constable,  he  was  told  that  the  consta 
ble  would  n't  serve  the  writ,  that  he  had  re 
fused  to  do  so,  and  he  replied,  "  I  do  'nt  care ; 
we  '11  have  him,  any  how."  And  of  this  the 
learned  counsel  for  the  Government  are  dis 
posed  to  make  much  handle.  But  is  it  fair  to 
do  so  ?  How  impossible  for  any  one  hearing  so 
equivocal  and  isolated  a  remark  to  fix  positively 
upon  its  meaning ;  to  say  absolutely  whether 
he  meant  that  they  would  have  Lowe,  whose 
arrest  was  the  sole  object  of  his  immediate 
attention,  and  who  might  be  taken  with  this 
warrant  by  any  one  of  numerous  constables, 
other  than  Meacham,  within  a  few  minutes, 
call ;  or  whether  he  meant  John,  whom  he  had 
as  yet  promised  no  relief,  directly  or  indirectly, 
except  by  the  hands  of  the  proper  officers  of 
the  law  and  through  the  operations  of  strictly 
legal  processes  ?  And  it  is  really  remarkable  how 
this  single  phrase  seems  to  have  been  heard  by 
every  one  of  a  certain  class  of  the  Government's 
witnesses,  up  stairs,  down  stairs,  out  of  doors,  and 
everywhere, —  the  echo  seems  to  haunt  them 
all ;  and  yet  nothing  can  be  more  flimsy  than 
the  statements  in  connection  with  which  this 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  KESCUE. 


163 


phrase  is  quoted  by  every  one  of  them.  Even 
Lowe  gives  the  whole  weight  of  his  testimony 
against"  the  probability  of  its  use  in  his  pres 
ence  ;  and  the  others  are  either  flatly  contra 
dicted  or  impeach  themselves. 

And  now  notice  this  remark  and  its  connection, 
as  Lowe  says  it  was  made  to  him  alone,  at  the 
close  of  that  second  private  interview,  in  the  little 
room  up  at  the  head  of  the  stairs.     Until  this 
moment,  every  word,  look,  and  act  of  Langston 
had  inspired  Lowe  with  confidence  that  he  had 
in  Langston  a  friend  who  would,  at  least,  labor 
against   a   forcible   rescue.     Even   Langston's 
kind  endeavors  to  get  Lowe  out  of  the  scrape, 
by  advising  him  to  urge   upon   Jennings  the 
expediency  of  parting  with  John  voluntarily, 
rather  than  risk  a  defence  against  the  excited 
and  stubborn  crowd,  did  not  shake  his  confi 
dence.    *He  trusted  him  confidently  until,    at 
the  last  moment,  when  it  became  plain,  as  he 
says,   that  negotiations  were  wellnigh   at   an 
end,  Langston  rose,  and  striding  rapidly  out, 
said,  "  I  don't  care,"  or  "  well,"  or  something  of 
that  sort — "  we  '11  have  him  any  how."     I  need 
not  dwell  on  this  point,  since  my  associate  has 
done  so ;  but  you  would  be  surprised  if  I  passed 
over  so  important  a  point,  without  calling  your 
attention   urgently  to  it.     The  statement  was 
not  repeated ;  Lowe  asked  for  no  explanation ; 
Langston  went  off,  and  did  not  return ;  Lowe 
Bays  he  did  not  come  up  with  those  who  took 
John  off ;  he  neither  saw  nor  heard  any  thing 
afterwards  on  that  day,  that  would  implicate 
him  with  the  rescuers,  any  more  than  he  did 
before  this  fatal  word  was  let  slip ;  so  that  the 
whole  of  his  conduct  that  day,  except  in  the 
use  of  this  ONE  WORD,  was  peaceful.    Mr. 
Lowe,  of  course,  though  he  can  hardly  tell  day 
from  night  on  any  other  point,  could  not  have 
misunderstood  Langston,  and  thought  he  said 
"  WE,"  when  in  fact  he  repeated  what  he  had 
already  said  with  impunity,  "  THEY  ! "     No ;  it 
suits  the  purposes  of  the  prosecution,  Gentle 
men,  that  you  believe  in  Mr.  Lowe's  infallibility 
on   this    point,   since   his  testimony   in   other 
points  does  but  help  the  defence,  and  on  this 
point  there  is  no  one  to  contradict  him  but  the 
defendant.     So  that  it  appears,  I  say,  that  the 
whole  of  the  defendant's  conduct  on  that  day, 
except  that  ONE  WORD,  was  that  of  a  peace 
maker  and  law-conservator.     But  Lowe  comes 
here  into  Court,  and  the  anxious  witnesses  all 
seeing  what  a  ghostly  chance  the  Government 
has  left,  and  hearing  Lowe   fix  up  that  little 
pronoun    so   nicely,    scratch   their  heads   and 
swear  that  they  heard  him  say  it  too,  and  that 
he  was  saying   it  on  all  manner  of  impossible 
and  improbable  occasions.     Now,  Gentlemen  of 
the  Jury,  can   you   lay  your  hands  on   your 
hearts  and  say  there  is  NO  ROOM  FOR  A 
REASONABLE  DOUBT  as  to  whether  the 
word  used  by  Langston  was  "  we,"  or  "  they  ?  " 
One  word  more  about  Sciples's  testimony,  or 
that  part  of  it  in  which  he  avers  that  he  saw 
Langston  passing  up  those  stairs  with  Watson, 


3tit  a  moment  before  the  rescue  took  place. 
Erie  says  he,  saw  that.  Watson  is  brought  to 
the  stand,  and  swears  straight  out,  with  the 
emphasis  and  boldness  of  an  intelligent  and 
aonest  man,  that  he  was  only  in  that  hall  — 
that  he  only  passed  up  those  stairs  —  in  com 
pany  with  Langston,  once  on  that  day,  and  that 
that  was  when  he  was  sent  by  Lowe  after 
Langston,  and  returned  with  him,  which  was 
immediately  prior  to  the  first  interview  between 
Lowe  and  Langston,  during  the  continuance  of 
which  Lowe  distinctly  remembers  that  the  train 
passed;  and  this,  he  says,  was  at  least  tico  hours 
aefore  the  rescue,  and  that  the  testimony  of  Sci- 
ples  in  reference  to  his  going  up  with  Langston 
mmediately  prior  to  the  rescue,  is  utterly  false. 

It  is  said  that  Wheeler  swears  he  also  saw 
lim  pass  up  some  time  before  the  rescue,  though 
ic  can't  tell  exactly  when.  But  he  ako  swears 
that  he  saw  him  going  up  those  stairs  with 
Watson  only  once,  and  AVatson  very  clearly 
fixes  the  time  and  adds  that  they  went  up  to- 
gefher  only  once.  So  Wheeler  only  corrobo 
rates  Watson  without  particularly  helping  the 
Government.  And  as  to  Sciples,  —  you,  Gen 
tlemen,  heard  the  testimony  that  was  given  here 
as  to  his  life-long  reputation  for  truth  and  ve 
racity,  and  it  was  of  such  a  character  that  I 
need  make  no  comments  upon  it — you  cannot 
feel  yourselves  authorized  to  give  his  testimony 
the  slightest  weight. 

I  believe  then,  Gentlemen 

[Mr.  GRISWOLD  called  off  Mr.  BACKUS'S  at 
tention  for  a  few  moments.] 

I  am  reminded,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 

may  it  please  the  Court,  that  before  I  close  I 
should  not  pass  over  without  comment  a  posi 
tion  taken  by  the  District- Attorney  in  his  open 
ing  remarks ;  and  that  was  that  any  interfer 
ence  with  the  parties  having  John  in  custody 
whether  by  way  of  legal  proceedings  or  other 
wise  was  unwarrantable  and  inexcusable  resis 
tance  to  the  authority  of  the  United  States ; 
that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  any  magistrate 
to  order  an  examination  of  them  by  arrest,  or 
in  the  power  of  a  constable  to  serve  a  warrant 
if  it  were  placed  in  his  hands ;  and  that  whoever 
advised  such  proceedings  was  equally  criminal, 
guilty,  and  chargeable  with  unlawfully  partici 
pating  in  attempts  to  rescue,  with  those  who 
appealed  only  to  intimidation  and  force.  It 
seems  to  me  that  nothing  farther  need  be  said 
upon  this  point  than  was  said  by  my  associate. 
I  cannot  for  one  moment  believe  that  any  one 
will  stand  up  here  and  say  that  a  person  thus 
acting  in  good  faith  to  secure  merely  a  legal  in 
vestigation  of  the  tenure  —  going  behind  no 
paper  presented  —  by  which  a  presumptively 
free  person  is  claimed  to  be  held  in  close  custo 
dy,  under  circumstances  which  not  only  justify 
but  oblige  the  darkest  suspicions,  makes  himself 
liable  to,  and  is  to  be  held  prima  facie,  as  wor 
thy  of  condign  punishment  as  one  who  appeals 
only  to  physical  violence  !  Certainly,  I  say,  it 
cannot  be  that  any  gentleman  who  makes  the 


164 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


slightest  pretensions  to  a  knowledge  of  law  will 
stand  up  here  and  risk  his  professional  reputa 
tion  upon  so  reckless  a  statement  a"s  that !  The 
gentleman  cannot  be  serious.  The  indictment 
alleges  no  such  resistance  to  authority,  but  re 
sistance  with  "  force  and  arms,"  and  therefore 
if  it  be  resistance,  and  be  proven,  it  cannot 
come  before  you,  Gentlemen,  who  sit  here  only 
to  ascertain  whether  the  allegations  of  the  in 
dictment  are  proven.  And  I  take  it,  therefore, 
that  the  discussion  of  this  point  —  if  a  discus 
sion  could  be  seriously  maintained !  —  must  fall 
altogether  outside  the  limits  of  this  case. 

But  if  it  were  involved  in  the  case,  I  should 
take  it  upon  myself  to  say,  as  my  associate  has 
said,  that  if  a  person  should  procure  such  an 
investigation,  'not  for  the  purpose  of  honest  and 
impartial  investigation,  but  as  a  cover  for  other 
and  illegal  proceedings,  then  the  parties  crimi 
nally  and  deceitfully  acting  under  such  cover 
might  be  amenable  to  this  statute.     But  even 
then,  the  movers  in  the  matter  acting  with  dis 
honest  and  criminal  motives,  if  any  other  per 
son  in  good  faith  should  promote  such  issue  and 
service  of  process  for  the  sole  purpose  of  law 
ful  inquiry,  in  good  faith  and  for  the  promotion 
of  justice,  and  in  ignorance  of  the  true  charac 
ter  of  the  power  under  which  the  parties  sought 
to  be   arrested  held  their  prisoner,  can   this 
Court  lay  down  such  a  rule  of  law  as  it  is  re 
quested  to  by  the  District- Attorney  ?  that  my 
client,  thus  acting  in  good  faith,  for  the  sole  pur 
pose  of  ascertaining  the  truth,  that  he  might  gov 
ern  himself  by  it,  is  amenable  to  the  penalties  of 
a  criminal  statute,  and  chargeable  with  "  unlaw 
fully,  willingly, -and  knowingly"  resisting  compe 
tent  legal  authority  ?     I  know  that  the  gentle 
man  read  an  authority  from  McLean's  Reports, 
in  a  civil  case  for  the  recovery  of  the  value  of 
a  slave,  that  it  can  make  no  difference  what  are 
the  motives  to  interference  so  long  as  the  injury 
to  the  plaintiff  is  the  same ;  but  where  has  it 
been  laid  down  as  a  rule  of  law  that  a  man  can 
be  guilty  of  crime  when  his  motives  are  inno 
cent  and  absolutely  submissive  to  Law  ?     I  ut 
terly  repudiate  the  existence  of  such  a  doctrine, 
and  I  shall  most  assuredly  take  it  for  granted 
that  no  such  rule  will  be  laid  down  by  this  Court, 
till  my  own  ears  bring  me  the  incredible  proof. 
Why,  who  ever  heard  of  an  individual  being 
convicted  of  larceny  for  going  into  your  house 
and  taking  an  article  under  the  honest  impres 
sion  that  it  was  his  own,  while  in  fact  it  was 
yours  and  not  his  all  the  time  ?     Though  an 
action  for  trespass  undoubtedly  would  lie  for 
the  full  value  of  the  article  thus  abstracted.     I 
know  that  it  may  be  necessary  to  invoke  such 
a  rule  of  law  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  a 
conviction  in  this  case,  for  certainly  without  its 
aid  this  Jury  can  never  on  their  oaths  find  a 
verdict  of  guilty ;  but  I  think  I  can  risk  noth 
ing  in  saying  that  I  know  this  Court  will  never 
lay  down  such  a  rule  as  law,  and  that  you  will 
not  take  the  talk  of  the  District- Attormey  as  a 
part  of  the  Charge  of  the  Court. 


And  now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  know 
that  there  is  a  mass  of  testimony,  which  it  has 
taken  us  some  two  weeks  or  more  to  draw  out, 
that  I  have  left  untouched,  even  after  so  lengthy 
remarks  as  I  have  already  made.  But  we  will 
let  all  of  that  pass.  I  feel  sure  that  you  will 
not  lay  stress  upon  isolated  scraps  or  garbled 
words  and  phrases  in  the  testimony,  especially 
such  as  run  utterly  counter  to  the  entire  drift 
of  the  whole.  And  that  you  will  not  do  this  is 
all  I  could  wish  to  ask  at  your  hands  ;  for,  un 
less  you  should  do  it,  you  must  render  the  ver 
dict  most  grateful  to  your  own  feelings,  and 
which  I  am  sure  could  not  be  unpleasant  to  my 
client  or  his  counsel. 

Under  the  instructions  of  the  Court,  you  will 
find,  if  those  instructions  shall  be  as  I  antici 
pate,  that  the  power  of  attorney  was  fatally  de- 
ective,  and  that  all  proceedings  under  it  were 
ncapable  of  laying  a  foundation  for  this  charge. 
But  if  the  Court  shall  differ  with  me  here,  and 
you  travel  down  to  the  next  point,  I  am  cer- 
:ainly  unable  to  see  from  what  portion  of  the 
evidence  you  are  to  discover  that  the  rescue 
was,  as  the  indictment  alleges,  from  the  cus 
tody  of  Anderson  Jennings  !  But  if,  contrary 
to  all  my  most  confident  expectations,  under 
the  ruling  of  the  Court,  you  are  forbidden  to 
investigate  this  point,  and  are  forced  on  to  the 
next,  then  I  know  that,  on  this  question  of 
fact — from  the  investigation  of  which  you  can 
not  be  driven,  —  I  say,  then,  I  know  that  you 
can  never  find  —  in  my  humble  estimation  — 
that  the  purpose  of  this  defendant,  in  his  con 
nection  with  that  crowd,  was  to  make  a  breach 
of  the  peace  and  to  encourage  an  illegal  res 
cue.  You  must  find — unless  you  throw  away 
all  this  testimony  and  manufacture  for  your 
selves —  that  he  labored  for  peace  and  for  peace 
only,  —  for  legal  measures,  and  for  legal  meas 
ures  only.  And  I  know,  too,  that  there  is  not 
a  man  among  you  who  can  lay  his  hand  upon 
his  heart  and  say  that  there  is  not  yi'ound  for 
one  reasonable  doubt  whether  the  allegations  of 
the  prosecution  in  this  indictment  are  proven 
or  not ;  so  that,  in  the  case  of  this  defendant, 
let  the  character  of  the  rescue  itself  be  what 
it  may  have  been,  you  will  be  forced  to  find  a 
verdict  of  Not  Guilty. 

And  now,  Gentlemen,  I  believe  I  have  said 
all  that  I  am  warranted  in  saying  upon  this 
subject.  I  have  endeavored  to  meet  the  issues 
presented  fairly  and  squarely.  Whatever  may 
be  my  own  views  of  the  constitutionality  and 
propriety  of  the  statute  upon  which  this  prose 
cution  is  founded,  I  must,  for  the  purposes  of 
this  trial,  regard  it  as  constitutional  and  of  full 
force.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  be  misapprehended, 
and  to  seem  to  occupy  a  position  that  I  do  not 
occupy.  And,  therefore,  I  wish  fo  say  of  that 
threat  of  the  District- Attorney,  that  he  hoped 
the  counsel  for  the  defence  would  not  be  al 
lowed  unrebuked  by  your  Honor  to  comment 
upon  the  enormity  of  the  statute  itself,  that  I 
hope  you  will  do  rne  the  justice  to  believe  that 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


165 


I  have  said  what  I  have  as  to  the  binding  force 
of  this  statute  without  the  remotest  regard  to 
this  miserable  menace,  but  with  sole  reference 
to  the  interests  of  my  client  and  the  mainte 
nance  of  my  own  self-respect. 

With  these  remarks,  Gentlemen,  I  leave  that 
man  in  your  hands,  standing  here  and  appeal- 
inn;  to  you  to  deal  out  to  him,  at  least,  in  this 
one  instance,  equal  justice,  as  you  would  to  a 
man  whose  complexion  was  of  another  hue.  It 
is,  as  I  have  already  said,  almost  the  only  case 
where,  under  the  rulings  of  our  Courts,  and 
under  the  laws  of  the  land,  he  is  entitled  to  de 
mand  equal  justice  with  a  white  man  at  the 
hands  of  his  fellow  men ;  but  your  oath  obli 
gates  you  to  deal  impartially  by  him,  and  your 
inclinations,  I  have  no  doubt,  sanction  that  oath ; 
and  I  leave  him  in  your  hands,  therefore,  with 
the  utmost  confidence,  that  upon  neither  of  the 
issues  made,  and  especially  upon  all  of  them, 
will  you  ever  be  able,  under  your  oaths,  to  find 
a  verdict  of  Guilty  against  him. 

FIFTEENTH  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 
CLEVELAND,  May  10,  1859. 

Court  convened  at  9  o'clock.  Judge  BLISS 
commenced  the  closing  argument  for  the  Gov 
ernment. 

Whether  the  offence  charged  upon  the  de 
fendant,  Charles  Langston,  was  one  against  the 
moral  ideas  or  simply  against  the  civil  statute, 
it  was  immaterial  in  the  consideration  of  this 
case,  and  if  he  was  guilty  of  this  offence,  he  as 
truly  merited  punishment  as  if  it  was  wrong  in 
itself,  for  this  laxity  in  respect  to  the  laws  of 
the  land  will  lead  to  perilling  if  not  subverting 
the  privileges  and  rights  which  the  laws  grant 
to  every  citizen.  In  cases  like  this,  where  the 
crime  is  not  prompted  by  feelings  of  momentary 
revenge,  an  otic  nee  is  as  truly  committed  as  if 
such  was  the  case. 

It  was  known  by  the  defendant  and  his  asso 
ciates  that  this  negro  was  satisfied  with  his  rela 
tions  with  his  master,  for  it  was  so  said  by  the  boy 
himself.  It  was  not,  then,  a  feeling  of  sympathy 
for  John,  that  prompted  Langston  and  his  asso 
ciates  to  rescue  him  from  the  hands  of  the  party 
which  was  taking  him  back  to  the  South.  No, 
his  purpose,  fixed  and  determined,  was  to  vio 
late  and  set  at  defiance  one  of  the  laws  of  the 
land  —  a  law  which  they  were  determined 
should  never  be  executed,  and  their  end  and 
aim  was  to  show  that  that  law  could  be  success 
fully  opposed  by  force.  This  spirit  which  would 
tear  down  and  annihilate  the  Government  of 
these  United  States,  and  which  would  prostrate 
the  civil  fabric  of  this  country,  was  the  spirit 
which  actuated  the  defendant  and  his  associates 
on  that  day.  The  students  who  attend  that 
Obcrlin  College  are  taught  sedition  and  treason 
in  connection  with  science  and  literature,  and 
they  graduate  from  that  institution  to  go  forth 
and  preach  opposition  and  treason.  The  right 
of  a  portion  of  our  inhabitants  to  hold  property  i 


in  slaves  may  be  an  unpleasant  one  to  contem 
plate,  and  we  may  regret  that  such  an  institu 
tion  exists,  but  it  is  not  our  sin,  and  the  people 
of  Ohio  are  not  guilty  of  its  commission,  and  so 
long  as  it  is  recognized  as  an  institution  of  one 
portion  of  the  country  by  the  laws  of  the  coun 
try,  so  long  must  we  respect  the  right  of  those 
who  hold  property  in  slaves.  The  right  of  the 
residents  of  Kentucky  can  no  more  be  broken 
down  by  such  men  as  Charles  Langston  than 
can  the  institution  in  the  Island  of  Cuba,  and 
why,  then,  should  they  take  up  arms  and  follow 
the  man  who  seeks  upon  our  soil  to  exercise  his 
own  proprietary  right  to  secure  his  own  prop 
erty  V 

The  reasons  of  the  adoption  of  the  original 
resolution  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves, 
were  shown  and  dilated  upon  by  the  Counsel, 
and  the  history  of  the  "  peculiar  institution " 
briefly  passed  over. 

In  1802  the  people  of  Ohio  deliberated  upon 
taking  upon  themselves  the  Constitution  with 
all  its  provisions  and  clauses,  including  this  one 
which  distinctly  provides  that  fugitive  slaves 
shall  be  rendered  up  to  their  owners,  and  hav 
ing  deliberated  upon  it,  applied  for  admission 
into  the  Union  and  were  admitted,  thereby 
binding  themselves  to  support  and  abide  by  all 
the  provisions  of  that  Constitution.  How,  then, 
can  they  stand  up  to-day  and  repudiate  and 
impugn  this  same  Constitution  ? 

Passing  then  to  the  evidence,  the  Counsel 
considered  the  testimony  brought  to  bear  against 
Langston  for  rescuing  the  slave  John.  The 
prosecution  had  no  possible  malice  against  the 
defendant,  and  assuredly  did  not  desire  to  have 
him  wrongfully  convicted,  but  if  it  was  conclu 
sively  proved  that  he  was  guilty  of  the  crime 
for  which  he  was  indicted,  then  the  agents  of 
the  Government  asked  for  a  punishment  as  a 
warning  to  those  who  wilfully  violate  the  laws 
of  the  land. 

Judge  BLISS  then  discussed  the  nature  of 
the  crowd  which  assembled  at  Wellington, 
setting  forth  that  Jennings,  Mitchell,  and 
Lowe,  had  gone  to  Oberlin  for  this  slave  — 
had  obtained  possession  of  him  by  some  little 
finesse  —  had  taken  him  to  Wellington  —  that 
the  Oberlin  people  pursued  them,  determined 
to  have  him  whether  he  had  been  taken  with 
or  without  authority,  and  whether  he  was  or 
was  not  a  slave.  He  then  went  on  to  show  by 
the  testimony  that  it  was  generally  known  in 
that  crowd  at  Wellington  that  the  boy  was  a 
slave,  but  that  they  "did  not  care  for  the  law," 
that  they  "  made  their  own  laws." 

If  Langston  was  in  that  crowd  that  was  de 
termined  "to  have  him  any  how,"  without 
doing  some  act  or  making  some  protestation 
against  the  evident  design  of  the  rest,  then  he 
was  guilty ;  and  it  has  been  shown  that  he  was 
circulating  in  that  crowd  and  actively  engaged. 
He  expressed  himself  at  one  time  satisfied  with 
the  papers  which  Lowe  and  Jennings  held. 
With  the  scheme  of  the  warrant  which  Meacham 


166 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


held,  and  which  John  Watson  had  caused  to 
be  made  out  for  the  arrest  of  the  keepers  of  the 
slave,  Langston  was  so  connected  by  his  ad 
vice  to  Meacham  to  serve  it,  as  to  make  him 
one  of  the  rescuing  party,  for  the  statute  pro 
hibits  taking  away  a  slave  from  the  officers  of 
the  law. 

Recess  taken  until  two  o'clock. 


AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

Court  convened  at  one  o'clock.  Judge 
BLISS  continued  his  argument  for  the  Govern 
ment,  reviewing  the  course  of  Langston  at 
Wellington,  where  he  pretended  friendship  to 
Lowe,  but  at  the  same  time  urged  the  execu 
tion  of  the  writ  for  his  arrest.  He  claimed  that 
from  the  very  commencement  the  defendant 
had  had  one  steady  aim  to  set  the  slave  at 
liberty,  and  that  he  encouraged  and  sympa 
thized  with  the  rescuing  crowd.  He  told  Lowe 
that  he  could  do  nothing  with  the  crowd,  that 
they  were  determined  to  have  the  boy,  and 
afterwards  made  the  proposition  to  let  the  boy 
go  peaceably.  Lowe  refused,  when  Langston 
said,  "  we  will  have  him  any  way,"  and  from 
this  moment  he  showed  his  true  purpose  and 
design. 

Here  reviewed  the  evidence  of  witnesses, 
showing  that  Langston  had  said  in  answer  to  a 
remark  that  there  was  a  large  crowd,  "  Yes, 
they  have  turned  out  well."  Yes,  they  had 
turned  out  well,  for  that  old  buzzard's  nest  of 
Oberlin,  where  the  negroes  who  arrive  over  the 
underground  railroad  are  regarded  as  dear 
children  —  that  nest  had  been  broken  into, 
and  one  of  the  brood  had  escaped.  And  these 
Oberlin  men,  who  had  been  taught  to  set  at 
defiance  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  rushed 
off  to  rescue  the  boy  who  had  been  taken. 
That  was  an  army  tha't  old  General  Satan  him 
self  might  have  selected  from  the  chief  spirits 
of  Hell  to  fight  against  the  power  of  Earth  and 
Heaven.  Langston  said,  after  returning  to 
Oberlin,  "  We  got  the  boy  and  brought  him 
home."  Now,  Gentlemen,  has  it  not  been 
clearly  and  unquestionably  shown  that  the 
defendant  was  actively  engaged  in  the  rescue  ? 

Leaving  the  question  of  the  evidence,  the 
counsel  then  spoke  upon  the  legal  questions 
which  give  the  right  of  process  to  owners  or 
agents  to  pursue  and  recover  their  fugitive 
slaves,  holding  that  the  rescue  was  made  from 
Jennings  assisted  by  Lowe.  But  even  if  from 
Lowe,  then  the  second  count  of  the  indictment 
charges  that  the  rescue  was  made  from  Lowe. 

The  counsel  closed  with  remarks  upon  the 
interest  which  Charles  Langston  had  in  the 
purpose  of  the  rescue,  being  determined  that 
at  all  events  and  all  hazards,  John  should  be 
rescued  and  should  never  be  taken  South,  and 
leaving  the  case  for  the  Jury  to  decide  upon. 

The  Court  then  gave  the  case  to  the  Jury  in 
the  following  charge :  — - 


CHARGE  TO  THE  JURY  BY  THE  COURT. 

The  United  States,) 

v.  V 

Charles  Langston,  ) 

WILLSON,  Judge. 

The  defendant,  Charles  Langston,  is  indicted 
for  rescuing  a  fugitive  slave,  alleged  to  be  the 
property  of  John  G.  Bacon,  of  Kentucky.  His 
plea  is  not  guilty,  and  it  is  upon  the  issue  made 
by  this  plea  that  you  are  sworn  to  return  a  ver 
dict  according  to  the  evidence.  / 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  severer  test  to  a  juror's 
integrity,  or  a  greater  demand  upon  his  impar 
tial  judgment,  than  when  called  upon  to  act  in 
a  case  where  political  partialities  or  prejudices 
are  invoked  to  sway  his  conduct.  The  very  na 
ture  of  our  Federal  system  is  such,  that  all  men 
become  more  or  less  interested  in  the  legislative 
policy  of  the  Government.  This  has  resulted 
in  political  organizations,  in  which,  at  different 
periods,  the  great  masses  of  the  people  have 
been  arrayed  in  parties,  antagonistic  to  each 
other,  and  often  characterized  by  strong  preju 
dices  and  bitter  animosities.  Hence,  congres 
sional  legislation  often  becomes  distasteful  to  a 
portion  of  the  people  of  the  country.  It  is  so 
at  the  South  with  reference  to  laws  enacted  to 
suppress  the  slave-trade,  and  peculiarly  so  at 
the  North,  with  reference  to  the  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1850.  Yet  ours  is  a  representative 
Government,  where  the  people  themselves  con 
trol  its  legislation.  It  is  indispensable  to  good 
order  and  to  the  well-being  of  society,  that  acts 
of  Congress,  placed  upon  the  statute  book, 
should  command  obedience,  and  that  partisan 
feeling  should  cease  and  prejudice  be  forgotten, 
in  the  observance  of  the  law.  Courts  and 
juries  especially  are  bound  to  impartially  ad 
minister  and  enforce  the  laws,  and  this  sacred 
obligation  is  imposed  with  the  most  solemn  sanc 
tions. 

It  is  the  first  duty  of  a  juror,  who  is  sworn 
to  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  one 
charged  with  crime,  to  divest  himself  of  any 
and  all  prejudices  he  may  have  against  the  law 
itself,  or  of  any  partiality  or  ill-will  he  may 
have  towards  the  accused.  It  is  enough  to 
know  that  the  law  alleged  to  be  broken  is  the 
law  of  the  land,  and  that  the  accused  is  pre 
sumed  to  be  innocent  until  his  guilt  is  proved. 
A  jury  that  yields  to  any  other  influences  than 
those  legitimately  produced  by  the  law  and  the 
testimony,  is  recreant  to  its  trust,  and  unwor 
thy  of  occupying  the  seats  of  twelve  honest 
men. 

This  caution  is  given,  Gentlemen,  not  because 
it  is  feared  that  vou  will  intentionally  swerve 
from  a  true  and  just  line  of  duty,  but  simply 
that  you  may  guard  and  brace  yourselves  against 
any  undue  influences,  while  considering  and 
weighing  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

What,  then,  is  the  case  you  are  sworn  to  try, 
and  what  are  the  material  facts  necessary  for 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


16T 


the  Government  to  establish  in  order  to  work  a 
conviction  of  the  defendant? 

The  indictment  is  predicated  upon  the  Cth 
and  7th  sections  of  the  Act  of  Congress,  ap 
proved  Sept.  18,  1850.  You  have  already  be 
come  familiar  with  the  provisions  of  this  statute, 
and  a  more  minute  reference  to  this  law  is  un 
necessary. 

This  indictment  contains  two  counts.  The 
second  having  been  substantially  abandoned  by 
the  prosecutor,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  first 

The  first  count  charges  that  the  negro  in  ques 
tion  was  a  slave  owing  service  to  John  G.  Ba 
con,  in  Kentucky.  That  said  negro  escaped 
from  Kentucky  into  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  was 
a  fugitive  from  his  owner,  —  that  he  was  seized 
and  hold  by  Anderson  Jennings  and  his  assist 
ants  in  Ohio,  by  virtue  of  a  power  of  attorney 
lawfully  executed  and  acknowledged  by  said 
Bacon,  authorizing  the  capture  of  the  fugitive ; 
and  that  the  defendant  acting  with  others  at 
Wellington  in  this  District,  unlawfully,  know 
ingly,  and  willingly  rescued  the  slave  from  Ba 
con's  agent  and  attorney. 

-You  will  call  to  mind  the  evidence  pertinent 
to  the  first  of  these  allegations. 

-€s  it  proved  that  the  negro  John  owed  ser 
vice  to  John  G.  Bacon  in  Iventucky  ? 

-The  existence  of  slavery  in  Kentucky  as  a 
municipal  regulation,  is  a  question  of  law,  which 
belongs  solely  for  the  consideration  of  the  Court ; 
and  for  the  purposes  of  this  trial  you  will 
regard  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  as 
recognized  and  lawfully  established  in  that 
State. 

Whether  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  ex^- 
isted  between  Bacon  and  the  negro  John,  is  a 
question  of  fact  to  be  ascertained  by  the  jury, 
from  the  testimony ;  and  this  may  be  established 
by  the  Government  according  to  the  same  rule 
of  evidence  that  obtains  in  other  contests  about 
the  right  in  personal  property. 

The  general  rule  of  law  is  that  the  proof  of 
the  actual  possession  of  such  property,  accom 
panied  with  the  claim  of  ownership,  is  sufficient 
to  establish  the  primd  facie  right  of  ownership. 
It  is  like  any  other  question  of  status  of  the  re 
lation  of  one  person  to  another,  which  may  be 
shown  by  the  facts  and  circumstances  attending 
that  relation,  —  as  for  instance  that  of  husband 
and  wife,  parent  and  child,  etc.  It  is  not  neces 
sary  to  trace  the  pedigree  of  this  negro  through 
a  maternal  ancestry  of  slaves,  nor  is  it  necessary 
to  prove  that  he  was  held  by  deed  or  contract 
of  purchase,  or  that  the  ownership  was  acquired 
by  inheritance. 

If  Bacon  exercised  that  control  over  him 
•which  is  ordinarily  done  in  Kentucky  by  a  mas 
ter  over  his  slave,  and  if  the  negro  had  the  usual 
marks  of  African  descent,  and  was  held  as  a 
slave  and  treated  as  such  by  his  alleged  master, 
the  proof  of  these  facts,  if  uncontradicted,  es 
tablishes  the  allegation  in  the  indictment,  that 
the  negro  John  was  held  to  service  as  the  slave 


of  John  G.  Bacon,  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  Kentucky. 

That  this  negro  escaped  into  Ohio  and  was 
a  fugitive  from  Kentucky  is  not  seriously  ques 
tioned. 

But  it  is  objected  by  the  counsel  for  the  de 
fendant  that  there  is  a  fatal  variance  in  the  proof 
from  the  allegation  in  the  indictment ;  as  to  the 
time  of  the  escape,  the  allegation  being  that  he 
left  his  master  on  the  first  of  March,  1857,  and 
the  proof  showing  his  departure  from  Kentucky 
to  have  been  early  in  January,  1856. 

This  is  not  a  descriptive  averment,  nor  is  the 
date  an  essential  ingredient  in  the  crime  charged 
to  have  been  committed,  to  wit,  the  unlawful 
rescue.  If  the  precise  day  of  a  fact  be  a  nec 
essary  ingredient  in  the  offence,  it  unquestiona 
bly  must  be  truly  stated.  But  when  the  fact  is 
mere  inducement  to  the  offence,  the  time  is  im 
material.  Such  is  the  case  here.  And  hence 
it  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  escape  at  any  time 
previous  to  the  actual  commission  of  the  offence 
charged  in  the  indictment. 

It  is  also  objected  that  the  power  of  attorney, 
under  which  Jennings  acted,  was  defective  in  its 
execution  and  acknowledgment,  and  that  it  is 
consequently  void. 

If  the  power  of  attorney,  which  has  been  pro 
duced  in  evidence,  was  lawfully  executed  and 
acknowledged  in  Kentucky,  where  it  was  made, 
it  is  valid  and  effectual  in  Ohio  to  accomplish 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given. 

It  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  power 
of  attorney  in  Kentucky  that  it  should  be  sealed 
by  the  party  giving  it,  unless  it  was  executed 
for  the  purpose  of  authorizing  the  conveyance 
or  incumbrance  of  real  estate,  or  of  mixed 
property. 

We  are  also  satisfied  that  the  acknowledg 
ment  was  valid  in  law.  It  is  sufficient  that  the 
acknowledgment  appears  to  be  taken  before  a 
legal  officer  of  the  Mason  County  Court,  certi 
fied  to  be  in  due  form  of  law  and  authenticated 
by  the  seal  of  that  Court.  The  Clerk  Cochran 
was  a  legal  officer  of  that  Court.  By  virtue  of 
his  office  he  was  authorized  to  take  this  ac 
knowledgment,  and  as  it  was  by  virtue  of  the 
powers  conferred  on  him  by  the  Mason  County 
Court,  that  he  was  authorized  to  do  the  act,  the 
seal  of  that  court  was,  by  legal  implication,  his 
seal  to  authenticate  such  official  act.  It  is  not 
competent  to  go  behind  this  authenticated  act 
of  an  officer  of  a  court  of  record.  The  lan 
guage  of  the  statute  is,  "  acknowledged  and  cer 
tified  under  the  seal  of  some  legal  officer  or 
court."  The  objection  that  the  signature  of  the 
clerk  was  made  by  his  deputy  is  not  deemed  to 
be  important.  It  is  the  seal  of  the  Court  which 
authenticates  the  act  of  acknowledgment ;  and 
hence  the  point  is  not  involved  as  to  the  author 
ity  of  the  clerk  to  delegate  to  a  deputy  the 
power  of  doing  an  official  act  which  devolves 
upon  him  personally.  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  case  of  Smith  v.  U.  S.  5  Peters,  302. 

You  will,  therefore,  regard   this  power  of 


168 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


attorney,  if  executed  by  Bacon,  as  valid  in 
law,  and  effectual  to  accomplish  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  given. 

This  brings  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  to 
the  consideration  of  an  important  question  of 
fact,  namely,  did  Jennings  hokl  the  fugitive,  at 
the  time  of  the  rescue,  by  virtue  of  the  power 
of  attorney  V 

When  the  agent  acts  under  this  law  by 
power  of  attorney,  the  statute  provides  that  he 
"  may  pursue  and  reclaim  the  fugitive,  either 
by  procuring  a  warrant  from  some  one  of  the 
courts,  judges,  or  commissioners  (named  in  the 
act),  for  the  apprehension  of  such  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  or  by  seizing  and  arresting 
such  fugitive,  when  the  same  can  be  done 
without  process,  and  by  taking  or  causing  such 
person  to  be  taken  forthwith  before  such  court, 
judge,"  etc. 

The  fugitive  may  be  seized  and  held  upon 
the  warrant,  or  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  at 
torney.  Both  modes  of  capture  and  detention 
have  but  the  single  purpose  of  bringing  the 
fugitive  before  the  judge  or  commissioner. 
The  person  making  the  arrest,  has  the  same 
power  and  authority  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  And  yet  the  agent  may,  at  the  same 
time,  resort  to  both  modes  of  capture  and  de 
tention.  The  agent  may  himself  take  the  fugi 
tive  before  the  judge  or  commissioner,  or  he 
may  cause  him  to  be  taken  before  such  officer 
by  virtue  of  the  warrant.  The  authority  of 
the  agent  holding  the  power  of  attorney  is  par 
amount  to  that  of  the  officer  holding  the  war 
rant.  The  warrant,  if  obtained,  is  procured  at 
the  instance  of  the  agent,  and  when  used  is 
merely  auxiliary  to  the  authority  conferred  upon 
the  agent  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  attorney. 
The  Marshal,  in  executing  the  warrant,  may 
act  under  the  direction  of  the  agent,  and  in  the 
matter  of  holding  the  fugitive  when  so  arrested, 
the  agent  has  complete  control  over  the  whole 
subject,  and  may  unquestionably  set  the  fugi 
tive  at  liberty  before  the  return  of  the  writ. 

It  is  not  the  case  of  the  execution  of  process, 
emanating  from  different  and  conflicting  juris 
dictions.  In  such  a  case,  the  officer  first  mak 
ing  the  seizure  has,  by  virtue  of  his  process, 
exclusive  control  and  possession  of  the  thing 
seized.  Under  this  statute,  it  is  clear  that  the 
warrant  is  auxiliary  to  the  power  of  attorney. 

If,  then,  the  proof  shows  that  at  the  time  of 
the  rescue  at  Wellington,  Jennings  and  Lowe 
had  a  joint  control  over  the  fugitive,  the  former 
in  virtue  of  a  good  and  sufficient  power  of 
attorney  for  his  reclamation,  and  the  latter 
assisting  him  as  the  agent  of  the  owner  of  the 
slave,  by  means  of  a  warrant  or  otherwise,  such 
proof  sustains  the  allegation  in  the  indictment, 
that  said  negro  was  in  the  custody  and  under 
the  control  of  Anderson  Jennings,  as  agent 
and  attorney  of  John  G.  Bacon,  together  with 
one  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  then  and  there  lawfully 
assisting  him  in  the  custody  and  control  of  the 
said  nearro  slave  called  John. 


I  have  been  thus  explicit  upon  this  point, 
because  it  is  one  that  has  been  the  subject  of 
much  discussion  by  counsel,  and  because  it  was 
proper  that  the  instructions  given  to  you  upon 
it  should  be  the  result  of  careful  considera 
tion. 

Should  you  find  from  the  testimony,  that 
Jennings  held  the  fugitive  by  virtue  of  the 
power  of  attorney,  and  that  the  negro  was  the 
identical  slave  that  escaped  from  Bacon,  there 
still  remains  the  all-important  inquiry  in  the 
case,  did  the  defendant  unlawfully,  knowingly, 
and  willingly  rescue  the  fugitive  from  his  lawful 
captors  ? 

The  rescue  could  not  be  obnoxious  to  the 
provisions  of  the  statute,  unless  it  implicated 
the  defendant  as  acting  knowingly  and  willingly 
in  the  matter.  That  is  to  say,  it  must  appear 
in  proof  that  he  knew  the  negro  was  a  fugitive 
from  labor,  and  was  lawfully  held  by  those  who 
had  possession  and  control  over  him  at  the  time 
of  the  rescue,  or  that  the  defendant  acted  un 
der  such  circumstances  as  to  show  that  he  might 
have  had  such  knowledge  by  exercising  ordi 
nary  prudence. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  prosecutor  that  this  knowl 
edge,  on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  is  estab 
lished  by  the  positive  testimony  of  Jennings, 
Lowe,  and  others,  and  that,  upon  this  point, 
the  proof  permits  of  no  doubtful  inference  or 
conjecture. 

It  is  asserted  (and  whether  truly  or  not  is  for 
you  to  determine  from  the  evidence)  that  Lowe, 
as  Deputy-Marshal,  acting  under  the  direction 
of  Jennings  and  in  virtue  of  a  Commissioner's 
warrant,  seized  and  arrested  the  fugitive  near 
the  village  of  Oberlin ;  that  he  conveyed  the 
slave  to  Wellington  and  there  surrendered  the 
principal  control  over  him  to  the  authorized 
agent  of  the  owner,  and  thereafter  acted  in  sub 
ordination  to,  and  as  an  assistant  of,  that  agent ; 
that  the  defendant  was  fully  informed  by  Lowe, 
at  two  several  interviews,  of  the  relation  which 
the  negro  bore  to  Bacon,  and  of  the  authority 
by  which  he  was  captured  and  held. 

But  the  defendant  contends  that,  notwith 
standing  the  proof  may  show  his  knowledge  of 
the  servitude  due  from  the  negro  to  Bacon,  his 
master,  and  of  the  authority  by  which  he  was 
held,  that  yet,  it  fails  to  establish  the  defend 
ant's  guilt  as  a  participator  in  the  rescue  charged 
in  the  indictment.  And  it  is  further  insisted, 
in  view  of  all  the  evidence  in  the  case,  that,  on 
acquiring  the  knowledge  that  the  negro  was  a 
slave  and  lawfully  held,  the  defendant  not  only 
abstained  from  the  commission  of  any  unlawful 
act  himself,  but  was,  in  fact,  really  active  and 
sincere  in  persuading  others  to  a  peaceful  course 
of  conduct,  and  to  a  faithful  observance  of  the 
law. 

In  regard  to  the  legal  implication  of  the  de 
fendant's  guilt  and  his  complicity  in  the  rescue 
of  the  fugitive  charged  in  the  indictment,  the 
instructions  of  the  Court,  given  on  a  former 
occasion,  may  properly  be  repeated  here,  as 


OBERLIN-WELLIXGTON  RESCUE. 


1G9 


they  enunciate  the  principle  of  law  which  is 
deemed  to  bo  applicable  to  this  branch  of  the 
case. 

If  ilie  persons  who  constituted  ilie  assemblage 
at  Wellington  on  the  13th  of  September,  1858,  liad 
come  together  for  the  purpose,  or  when  there  were 
engaged  in  rescuing  a  fugitive  slave  from  those 
authorized  to  capture  and  hold  him,  under  the 
laica  of  1850,  they  were  engaged  in  an  unlawful 
act,  and  ichatever  was  said  and  done  ly  one  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  enterprise,  icere,  to  all  in 
tents  and  purposes,  the  declarations  and  acts  of 
all.  But  to  charge  one,  against  whom  there  is 
no  specific  proof,  of  things  done  by  him,  with 
what  was  done  and  said  by  others  in  the  prose 
cution  of  the  unlawful  enterprise,  concert  of 
action,  between  him  and  those  others,  for  the 
unlawful  purpose,  must  be  shown.  And  for  this 
purpose  it  was  competent  for  the  prosecutor 
to  give  in  evidence  the  defendant's  declarations 
to  others,  encouraging  the  rescue  before  it  was 
accomplished,  and  of  his  statements  in  the 
meeting  at  Oberlin,  immediately  upon  his  re 
turn  after  the  rescue.  What  was  said  by  oth 
ers  that  were  engaged  in  the  unlawful  act,  after 
the  assemblage  at  Wellington  had  broken  up 
and  dispersed,  is  not  evidence  against  the  de 
fendant.  Accordingly  what  Shephard  and  oth 
ers  said  at  the  meeting  at  Oberlin  on  the  even 
ing  of  the  13th  of  September,  is  excluded  from 
your  consideration,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  in 
competent  testimony. 

The  inquiry,  then,  becomes  important,  Was 
there  concert  of  action  between  the  defendant 
and  those  actually  engaged  in  the  rescue  of  the 
fugitive  ?  If  there  was,  the  defendant  is  guilty, 
and  as  much  so  as  if  he  had  rendered  manual 
service  in  the  act. 

The  rule  of  law  is,  that  every  one  who  enters 
into  a  common  purpose  or  design,  is  deemed  a 
party  to  every  act  which  had  before  been  done 
by  the  others,  without  regard  to  the  time  in 
which  he  entered  into  the  combination,  and, 
also,  a  party  to  every  act  which  may  afterwards 
be  done  by  any  of  the  others,  in  furtherance  of 
such  common  design.  This  concert  of  action, 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant  with  the  rescuers, 
if  it  existed  at  all,  is  to  be  determined  by  his 
declarations  and  conduct.  If  he  advised  and 
urged  others  into  the  commission  of  the  unlaw 
ful  act,  he  made  their  conduct  his  own  in  effect 
ing  the  rescue.  He  thereby  acted  in  concert 
with  them  in  the  common  design,  to  wit,  the 
rescue  of  the  slave. 

It  is  contended  by  the  counsel  for  the  Gov 
ernment,  that  the  defendant,  by  his  words  and 
conduct,  evinced  a  determined  (though  cau 
tious)  purpose  of  effecting  the  escape  of  the 
fugitive  in  violation  of  law.  That  his  preten 
sions  for  suggesting  a  resort  to  the  forms  of  law, 
was  but  another  more  subtle  and  effectual  mode 
of  accomplishing  the  rescue;  and  his  urging  the 
constable  to  serve  the  State  warrant  against 
Jennings  and  his  assistants  for  kidnapping  the 
negro,  after  being  informed  of  his  lawful°cap- 

22 


ture,  is  claimed  as  conclusive  of  the  defendant's 
complicity  in  the  rescue. 

In  a  free  State  like  Ohio,  every  human 
being  in  it,  whether  white  or  black,  is  presumed 
to  be  free  until  a  different  status  is  shown. 
And  hence  when  one  is  restrained  of  his  free 
dom  by  another,  a  resort  to  the  ordinary  forms 
of  proceeding  under  the  State  laws,  to  inquire 
into  the  cause  of  such  restraint  or  imprisonment 
implies  no  wrong.  But  when  a  fugitive  from 
labor  is  captured  and  held  in  any  of  the  modes 
and  under  the  authority  designated  by  the  Act 
of  Congress  of  1850,  any  interference  by  the 
State  authorities  has  no  justification,  nor  can 
those  be  justified  who  invoke  their  interference, 
when  they  know  the  fugitive  is  thus  held. 

If  Jennings  seized  and  held  the  fugitive  by 
virtue  of  a  good  and  sufficient  power  of  attor 
ney  executed  for  that  purpose  and  was  lawfully 
assisted  by  Lowe,  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  at 
Wellington,  who  issued  a  State  warrant  against 
them  for  kidnapping  such  fugitive,  was  acting 
in  a  matter  over  which  he  had  no  jurisdiction. 
And  if  the  defendant  was  informed  and  had 
knowledge  of  this  condition  of  things,  and  after 
wards  urged  the  execution  of  the  warrant  for 
the  purpose  of  liberating  the  fugitive,  his  con 
duct  in  this  particular  implicated  him  as  much 
in  the  common  design  of  the  mob,  as  if  he  had 
given  his  aid  to  the  rescue  by  physical  force. 

What  the  defendant  said  and  what  he  did,  in 
relation  to  the  rescue,  has  been  detailed  in  the 
testimony  of  various  witnesses,  and  this  testi 
mony  has  been  so  minutely  brought  to  your 
attention  by  the  counsel  on  both  sides,  as  to  re 
quire  no  further  recapitulation. 

I  have  throughout  regarded  it  as  an  acknowl 
edged  fact  (and  so  conceded  by  the  defendant's 
counsel)  that  an  unlawful  rescue  of  the  negro 
Avas  made.  For,  in  legal  contemplation,  it 
matters  not  whether  he  was  released  from  cap 
ture  by  the  manual  force  of  the  mob,  or 
whether  that  release  was  effected  by  threats 
and  demonstrations  of  violence.  It  would  be 
an  unlawful  rescue  as  much  in  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other. 

With  these  rules  of  law  for  your  government, 
Gentlemen,  the  case  is  now  committed  to  your 
hands.  Treat  it  as  you  would  any  other  case 
involving  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  a  man  charged  with  a  criminal  violation  of 
the  law.  All  matters  of  fact  in  this  controversy 
are  exclusively  for  your  consideration.  And  if 
from  a  careful  and  impartial  review  of  the 
proofs,  you  come  to  the  conclusion,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  defendant  is  guilty 
of  the  offence  charged,  you  will  say  so  by  your 
verdict.  But  if  the  proof  fails  to  produce  that 
conviction  upon  your  minds,  you  will  return  a 
verdict  of  acquittal. 

The  Jury  after  being  out  about  half  an  hour 
returned  to  their  seats  and  rendered  a  verdict 
of 

"  GUILTY  ! " 


170 


EISTOBY  OF  THE 


CHAPTER    FOURTH. 


CLEVELAND,  WEDNESDAY,  May  11, 1859. 

Court  convened  at  9  o'clock.  The  fact  that 
sentence  was  to  be  passed  upon  Bushnell,  and 
probably  Langston,  caused  the  court  room  to 
be  densely  crowded  with  eager  listeners  and 
watchers  of  the  proceedings.  A  large  propor 
tion  of  the  audience  was  composed  of  ladies. 

Judge  SPALDING  announced  that  he  had  a 
motion  to  make  before  the  Court,  that  the  next 
case  of  those  indicted,  that  of  John  Watson, 
be  immediately  taken  up  and  proceeded  with. 
This  matter  was,  however,  deferred  until  after 
sentence  should  have  been  passed  upon  Bush 
nell. 

Mr.  Bushnell,  who,  with  his  wife  and  child, 
occupied  seats  near  the  bench,  was  told  to 
stand  up.  The  COURT  asked  the  prisoner  if  he 
had  any  thing  to  say  why  sentence  should  not 
be  pronounced.  Mr.  Bushnell  intimated  that 
he  had  not.  The  COURT  then  asked  if  he  had 
any  regrets  to  express  for  the  offence  of  which 
he  stood  convicted.  Receiving  another  nega 
tive,  it  proceeded  to  pronounce  sentence  from 
manuscript,  as  follows:  — 

"  It  is  at  all  times  a  disagreeable  and  painful 
duty  for  the  Court  to  pronounce  the  sentence 
and"  impose  the  penalty  which  the  law  demands 
for  its  violation.  The  discharge  of  this  duty  is 
peculiarly  painful  in  dealing  with  the  class  of 
offenders  to  which  you  belong,  who  deem  it  a 
praiseworthy  virtue  to  violate  the  law,  and 
then  seek  its  penalties  with  exultation  and  defi 
ance. 

"  A  man  of  your  intelligence  must  know,  that 
the  enjoyment  of  a  rational  liberty  ceases  the 
moment  the  laws  are  allowed  to  be  broken  with 
impunity,  and  thereby  fail  to  afford  any  protec 
tion  to  society,  —  that  if  the  standard  of  right 
is  placed  above  and  against  the  laws  of  the 
land,  those  who  act  up  to  it  are  any  thing  else 
than  good  citizens  or  good  Christians.  You 
must  know  that  when  a  man  acts  upon  any  sys 
tem  of  morals  or  theology  which  teaches  him 
to  disregard  and  violate  the  laws  of  the  Gov 
ernment  that  protects  him  in  life  and  property, 
his  conduct  is  as  criminal  as  his  example  is  dan 
gerous. 

"  The  good  order  and  well-being  of  society 
demand  an  exemplary  penalty  in  your  case. 
You  have  broken  the  law,  —  you  express  no  re 
gret  for  the  act  done,  but  are  exultant  in  the 
wrong.  It  is  therefore  the  sentence  of  the 
Court,  that  you  pay  a  fine  of  six  hundred  dol 
lars,  and  be  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  of 
Cuyahoga  County  for  sixty  days  from  date,  and 

Say  the  costs  of  this  prosecution.  It  is  made  the 
uty  of  the  marshal  to  see  this  sentence  exe 
cuted  ;  and  in  case  any  casualty  should  inter 
fere  with  the  security  of  your  confinement  in 
the  jail  named,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  mar 


shal  to  enforce  the  confinement  in  some  other 
county  jail  within  this  District. 

"  Mr.  Marshal,  you  will  take  the  prisoner  into 
custody." 

This  sentence  was  received  irith  quietness  by 
the  prisoner  and  his  friends. 

The  COURT  then  asked  for  any  farther  mo 
tion. 

Mr.  RIDDLE  moved  to  proceed  with  the  case 
of  John  Watson. 

The  COURT  inquired  if  the  District- Attorney 
was  ready  in  that  case.  No,  .he  replied,  he 
was  not  ready.  He  had  learned  that  the  Sheriff 
of  Lorain  County  had  that  morning  arrested 
Jennings,  Lowe,  and  Mitchell,  on  a  charge  of 
kidnapping,  and  that  they  were  now  in  the  cus 
tody  of  that  officer.  He  believed,  and  could 
say  he  knew,  that  all  this  machinery  of  arrest 
ing  these  men  and  confining  them  on  that 
charge,  thereby  delaying  and  hindering  the 
business  of  the  Court,  was  the  work  of  the  de 
fendants  who  thus  endeavored  to  put  a  stop  to 
farther  proceedings  against  the  indicted.  He 
had  also  taken  notice  that  a  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus  in  the  case  of  Bushnell  would  be  applied 
for,  which  would  perhaps  interrupt  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  Court. 

He  also  stated  that  he  had  been  appointed 
by  the  Government  to  defend  these  witnesses 
in  the  Lorain  County  Court  in  his  official  ca~ 

rity.  Under  these  circumstances  it  would 
impossible  for  him  to  proceed  at  present 
with  the  case  of  Watson. 

Judge  SPALDIXG  replied  that  the  District- 
Attorney  knew,  as  well  as  the  Court  and  every 
lawyer  at  the  bar,  that  if  the  Court  needed 
these  witnesses,  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ad  tes- 
tificandum  would  bring  them  at  any  moment 
from  any  jail  in  the  State,  and  keep  them  at 
the  convenience  of  the  Court.  The  plea  that 
they  were  carried  off  was  a  mere  sham,  as  any 
body  could  see. 

The  next  case  upon  the  list,  John  Watson, 
had  a  right  to  an  immediate  trial,  and  the  con 
venience  of  no  District- Attorney  in  the  land 
was  to  be  consulted.  If  the  prosecution  wanted 
the  case  postponed  he  asked  that  the  motion  be 
submitted  in  writing  and  sworn  to. 

Judge  BELDEN  remarked  that  his  official  char 
acter  would  give  power  enough  to  the  bare  mo 
tion  to  postpone. 

Judge  S.  "  Your  official  character  can  add 
nothing  to  the  statement." 

"  Nor  your  blackguardism." 

"  And  your  private  character  still  less." 

The  District-Attorney  then  moved  to  the 
Court  that  the  bail  of  the  prisoners  be  reduced 
to  $500.  Considering  that  this  has  been  the 
amount  of  secured  baifwhich  has  been  required 
from  the  first,  the  magnanimity  of  tho  affair  can 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


171 


be  properly  appreciated.  He  also  stated  that 
he  had  been  told  that  Mr.  Plumb  on  Tuesday 
night  abused  the  Sheriff  of  Lorain  county  for 
Hot  having  before  executed  his  writ.  This 
Mr.  Plumb  denied  in  toto,  Marshal  Johnson  also 
showing  that  it  was  not  true. 

A  recess  was  at  length  taken  until  2  o'clock 
for  the  preparing  of  affidavits  on  both  sides. 

AFTEROOX   SESSION. 

Court  convened  at  2  o'clock. 
In  accordance  with  notice  given  in  the  morn 
ing,  Judge  BELDEX  presented  to  the  Court  a 
motion  for  continuing  the  rest  of  the  cases  of 
those  indicted,  the  motion  being  in  substance  as 
follows :  — 

Grounds  for  Continuance.  —  1st.  That  An 
derson  Jennings,  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  Richard  P. 
Mitchell,  and  Samuel  Davis,  necessary  witnesses, 
had  this  morning  been  arrested  by  the  Sheriff 
of  Lorain  county  by  a  warrant  issued  on  an 
indictment  for  "  kidnapping  "  in  Lorain  county 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  had  been,  or 
would  be,  during  the  day,  taken  away,  so  that 
their  testimony  could  not  be  had. 

2d.  That  the  next  term  of  the  Lorain  county 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  would  commence  on 
Tuesday  next,  and  that  the  District- Attorney 
had  been  appointed  by  the  Government  for  their 
defence. 

3d.  That  the  offence  charged  against  these 
men  was  based  solely  upon  the  facts  that  these 
defendants  were  engaged  in  seizing  and  arrest 
ing,  by  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
the  very  fugitive  from  service,  mentioned  in 
the  indictment  for  rescue  ;  and  that  the  indict 
ments  for  kidnapping  were  found  on  testimony 
of  some  of  the  rescuers,  or  on  testimony  pro 
cured  by  them. 

4th.  That  Lowe  was  arrested  on  his  way 
here  and  compelled  to  enter  into  recognizance 
with  surety  for  his  appearance  in  the  Lorain 
county  Court,  on  Tuesday  next,  which  recog 
nizance  would  be  forfeited  unless  he  appeared, 
and  if  he  appeared,  he  might  be  detained  two 
or  three  weeks. 

5th.  Cochran  and  Bacon  were  absent  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  District- Attorney,  and 
their  testimony  was  indispensable. 

Gth.  That  writs  of  habeas  corpus  would  be 
applied  for  in  the  Bushnell  and  Langston  cases, 
which  would  require  the  immediate  attention  of 
the  District- Attorney. 

7th.  That  no  trial  could  be  had  in  any  of  the 
remaining  cases,  in  all  probability,  without  a 
most  unreasonable  delay,  which  would  be 
caused  by  the  action  of  the  defendants,  or  their 
confederates,  or  by  advice  of  their  counsel. 

The  Court  read  the  50th  and  51st  Rules,  and 
under  them  adjudged  itself  bound  to  allow  the 
motion  of  the  District- Attorney.  The  Rules 
are  the  same  as  obtain  in  the  State  Courts. 

"  RULE  50.  Motions  for  continuance  for  rea 
sons  known  to  the  party  at  the  commencement 
of  the  term,  shall  be  filed  on  or  before  the 


second  day  thereof;  and  the  facts  on  which  such 
motions  are  founded,  shall  be  verified  by  oath, 
or  statement  of  counsel,  unless  they  appear  of 
record ;  and  such  motions  shall  be  submitted 
without  argument 

"  RULE  51.  On  such  motion,  the  affidavit 
or  official  statement  will  be  taken  as  true  ;  and 
no  contradictory,  supplemental,  or  amended 
affidavit  or  statement  will  be  permitted." 

It  consented  to  receive,  however,  an  inde 
pendent  motion  from  the  counsel  for  the  defence, 
which  was  presented  by  Judge  TILDEX,  and 
reads  as  follows :  — 

United  States  of  America,      >  U.  States   Dis- 
Northern  District  of  Ohio,  ss.  )     trict  Court. 
United  States,  ^      No.  72. 

v.  >  Indict,  for  Rescue,  etc. 

John  Watson. ) 

The  defendant,  John  Watson,  moves  the 
Court  that  he  may  be  put  on  his  trial  to  the 
Jury,  on  the  plea  of  "  not  guilty,"  without  fur 
ther  delay. 

In  support  of  said  motion  the  said  John  Wat 
son  upon  his  oath  says  :  — 

1st.  That  he  was  arraigned  before  this  tri 
bunal  on  the  8th  of  December,  A.  r>.  1858,  and 
plead  "  not  guilty,"  to  said  indictment,  and  de 
manded  an  immediate  trial.  At  the  instance  of 
the  U.  S.  District- Attorney  the  trial  was  at  that 
time  postponed,  and  this  defendant  entered  into 
a  recognizance  in  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dol 
lars  for  his  appearance  in  this  Court  on  the  2nd 
Tuesday  in  March,  1859.  Before  that  day  ar 
rived,  however,  at  the  instance  of  the  U.  S. 
District- Attorney,  and  for  his  special  accommo 
dation,  a  further  postponement  of  the  trial  of 
defendant  was  had,  by  consent  of  defendant's 
Counsel,  until  the  5th  day  of  April,  1859,  when 
defendant  duly  appeared  in  Court,  and  there 
after  regularly  appeared  from  day  to  day  until 
the  15th  day  of  April,  1859,  when,  on  motion 
of  the  U.  S.  District- Attorney,  he  was  ordered 
into  the  custody  of  the  U.  S.  Marshal  for  said 
Northern  District  of  Ohio,  and  was  on  the  same 
day  last  mentioned,  by  him  committed  to  close 
confinement  in  the  county  Jail  of  the  county 
of  Cuyahoga,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  where  he 
has  ever  since  been,  and  is  now,  restrained  of 
his  liberty,  and  awaiting  his  trial,  upon  no  other 
charge  than  that  contained  in  said  indictment 
of  rescuing  a  fugitive  from  service. 

2d.  This  affiant  says  it  is  not  true  that,  an 
terior  to  the  time  when  he  was  placed  in  close 
confinement  in  the  jail  of  Cuyahoga  county  as 
aforesaid,  he  had  ever  contemplated  a  breach  of 
his  recognizance,  voluntarily  entered  into  as 
aforesaid,  and  it  is  not  true  that  he,  at  any  time, 
surrendered  himself  in  discharge  of  his  said  re 
cognizance  ;  nor  yet  is  it  true  that  his  counsel 
proposed  to  surrender  him  in  discharge  of  his 
recognizance  ;  on  the  contrary,  this  affiant  says 
that  "he  should,  undoubtedly,  at  this  moment  be 
at  large  upon  his  said  recognizance,  if  he  had 
i  not  been  ordered  into  custody  as  aforesaid  ou 


172 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


the  15th  day  of  April  aforesaid,  upon  the  motion 
of  the  U.  S.  District-Attorney  as  aforesaid. 

3d.  This  affiant  further  says,  that  the  journal 
entry  of  this  Court,  made  on  the  15th  day  of 
April,  aforesaid,  so  far  as  the  same  purports  to 
show  that  this  defendant,  in  connection  with 
other  individuals  resting  under  similar  charge, 
surrendered  himself  in  discharge  of  his  recog 
nizance,  was  made  under  a  mistaken  conception 
of  the  facts  as  they  transpired,  and,  so  long  as 
said  journal  entry  is  permitted  to  stand  in  force, 
this  defendant  will  be  unable,  consistently  with 
the  preservation  of  his  own  self-respect,  to  renew 
his  individual  recognizance,  or  to  give  bail  for 
his  appearance  at  a  subsequent  term  of  this 
Court.  He  must,  therefore,  continue  to  lie  in 
jail  unless  he  can  have  the  benefit  of  a  speedy 
trial. 

4th.  This  affiant  says  further,  that  in  addition 
to  the  injury  likely  to  be  sustained  by  defend 
ant  in  his  bodily  health,  by  a  long-continued 
imprisonment  in  warm  weather,  he  has  reason 
to  believe  that  a  farther  postponement  of  his 
trial  will  lose  him  the  benefit  of  a  very  material 
witness  in  the  person  of  William  D.  Scrimgeour, 
who  is  fast  wasting  away  by  means  of  a  con 
sumption,  and  is  by  his  friends  expected  to  live 
but  a  short  time.  Said  W.  D.  Scrimgeour  re 
sides  at  Oberlin,  in  the  county  of  Lorain,  and 
can  be  brought  into  Court,  as  this  affiant  is  ad 
vised,  during  any  day  of  the  present  or  the 
next  coming  week.  He  has  hitherto,  since  the 
commencement  of  this  class  of  trials,  been  too 
unwell  to  be  brought  so  far  from  his  home. 

J.  WATSOX. 
State  of  Ohio,  Cuyahoga  County,  ss. 

Sworn  to  before  me  by  the  said  John  Wat 
son,  and  subscribed  by  him  in  my  presence,  the 
llth  day  of  May,  1859. 

JOSEPH  S.  GRANNIS, 
Notary  Public  for  said  County. 

Spalding,  Tilden,  and  Riddle,  Att'ys  for  De 
fendant. 

The  counsel  upon  both  sides  endeavored  to 
make  some  remarks  upon  these  two  motions, 
but  the  Court  remarked  that  no  explanation  or 
comment  was  necessary,  as  the  first  motion, 
filed  by  the  District-Attorney  was  sufficient, 
and  would,  for  the  reasons  set  forth,  be  granted. 

The  Court  announced  that  the  remainder  of 
the  cases,  John  Watson's  included,  would  be 
continued. 

Mr.  KIDDLE  then  arose  and  remarked:  — 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  With  the  indulgence  of  the 
Court  J  will  call  its  attention  to  a  matter  to 
which  I  have  already  incidentally  referred,  and 
that  is  in  reference  to  the  circumstances  under 
which  these  defendants  are  in  the  custody  of  the 
jailer. 

Now,  it  makes  no  matter  who  these  parties 
are,  no  sort  of  difference  what  the  offence  with 
which  they  stand  charged,  nor  where  they  re 
side  —  of  course  —  nor  how  much  or  how  little 
may  be  known  to  your  Honor  of  their  possible 


or  probable  guilt  through  the  medium  of  the 
trial  just  closed.  They  are  at  present  in  the  cus 
tody  of  the  jailer  under  an  order  of  this  Court. 
I  think  your  Honor  must  be  satisfied  that  that 
order  was  made  and  embodied  in  the  Journal 
under  a  misapprehension  of  the  facts. 

They  are  simply  these.  These  parties  were 
in  attendance  upon  this  Court  regularly  and 
constantly,  in  obedience  to  the  order  of  the 
Court,  bound  by  their  own  recognizances  in  the 
sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  each ;  and  were  in 
faithful  observance  of  all  the  conditions  of  those 
recognizances.  Now  I  need  not  stop  here  to 
discuss  the  rights  of  these  defendants  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  rights  of  the  government  upon 
the  other.  Ordinarily  a  recognizance  is  ample 
protection  against  custody  or  arrest,  so  long  as 
its  conditions  are  not  infracted.  But  I  do  not 
say  —  no  lawyer  will  attempt  to  sustain  —  Uiat 
when  persons  at  large  upon  their  recognizances 
are  here  at  the  bar  of  the  Court  in  its  presence 
on  actual  trial,  it  is  not  competent  for  the  Court 
to  order  them  into  custody,  when  it  becomes 
absolutely  necessary  to  retain  their  persons  be 
yond  the  possibility  of  escape.  But  I  do  under 
take  to  say  here,  in  deference  to  the  decision  of 
the  Court  and  to  the  profound  learning  of  the 
gentleman  who  appears  in  behalf  of  the  Gov 
ernment,  that  never  before,  anywhere  was  a  mo 
tion  ever  made  to  order  a  man  into  custody  who 
was  on  bail,  and  constantly  in  the  most  submis 
sive  obedience  to  every  condition  of  his  bond, 
and  to  every  order  of  the  Court :  or  such  an 
order  given,  unless  it  was  in  such  exigencies  of 
trial  as  have  been  referred  to.  I  know  —  we 
all  know —  that  it  is  customary  to  order,  on  good 
cause  shown,  an  increase  of  the  amount,  or  the 
sureties  of  bail,  even  when  there  has  been  no 
infraction  of  that  already  given.  But  certainly, 
with  respect  to  actual  arrest,  they  have  this 
rio-ht,  that  while  they  are  in  the  full  discharge 
of  the  condition  of  their  recognizances,  they 
have  a  right  to  expect  that  the  Government  will 
respect,  and  that  every  one  else  will  respect, 
their  rights  under  it,  and  if  that  bail  is  insuffi 
cient,  an  order  for  its  increase  can  be  made,  but 
an  arrest  never. 

Now  it  is  said  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
that  these  parties  surrendered  their  recogniz 
ances,  and  hence  were  taken  into  custody.  I 
wish  to  avoid  any  question  of  veracity,  compar 
ative  or  unqualified. 

But  that  these  parties  did  not  either  intend  to 
surrender  their  recognizances,  or  as  a  matter  of 
fact  did  not  surrender  them,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  understanding  of  the  Government 
officials  in  the  hurry  and  perhaps  the  excite 
ment  of  the  occasion,  I  take  it,  your  Honor, 
must  be  true.  And  what  followed  ?  Why, 
after  they  were  taken  into  custody,  that  was 
followed  by  an  order  of  the  Court  to  remit  these 
parties  back  on  their  own  personal  recogniz 
ances  to  the  very  position  which  they  occupied  be 
fore  ;  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  in  the 
judicial  mind,  after  ordering  them  into  custody 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


ITS 


the  question  had  been  raised  whether  after  all 
there  was  any  good  reason  for  such  an  order, 
and  it  had  been  decided  negatively:  —  for  if 
there  were  such  a  reason  it  must  have  been  a  dis 
covery  of  some  infraction  of  the  conditions  of 
the  bond,  or  an  insufficiency  in  the  amount  or 
in  its  sureties.  And  in  deciding  that  these  par 
ties  be  remitted  to  their  former  standing,  it 
would  seem  that  the  Court  became  satisfied  that 
there  neither  was  an  infraction  of  the  conditions 
of  the  recognizance,  nor  a  deficiency  in  the 
amount  of  the  sureties.  And  now,  your  Honor, 
these  defendants,  knowing  perfectly  well  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  ordered 
into  custody ;  I  say  knowing  perfectly  well,  and 
beyond  the  possibility  of  a  mistake,  all  the  cir 
cumstances  under  which  they  were  ordered  into 
custody,  —  that  it  was  done  without  any  show 
of  cause  or  pretext,  —  they  cannot  with  self- 
respect  comply  with  that  order  of  the  Court 
discharging  them  on  their  own  recognizances ; 
for  that  is  a  conclusive  admission  that  they  were 
in  the  wrong  —  an  admission  they  cannot  make, 
and  it  is  an  outrage  to  attempt  thus  to  force 
them  to  make  it. 

A  question  now  arises  upon  the  propriety 
of  their  course  ;  and  I  do  not  now  refer  to  any 
outside  discussions;  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  opinions  or  occurrences  outside  the  Court 
Room  —  I  refer  to  this  question  and  its  bear 
ings  upon  the  position  these  parties  occupy 
before  this  Court.  And  now  we  ask,  will  your 
Honor,  while  always  remembering,  as  we 
always  will,  that  you  are  a  Court,  also  re 
member  that  you  are  a  man  !  That  this  pre 
sumption  of  the  law,  that  these  parties  must  be 
presumed  to  be  innocent  until  they  are  proven 
to  be  guilty,  is  not  a  mere  idle  worthless 
formula  ? 

What  can  these  parties  do  ?  They  are  per 
fectly  unconscious  of  having  at  any  time  en 
tertained  any  intention  to  infract  the  conditions 
of  their  recognizances  or  the  orders  of  the 
Court,  and  no  less  perfectly  unconscious  of 
having  ever  voluntarily  surrendered  their  re 
cognizances.  Much  more  than  that  —  they 
KNOW  that  they  never  did  so  surrender  them ; 
and  they  KNOW  that  they  did  ask  to  have  them 
cancelled  after  they  had  been  taken  into  cus 
tody.  Now,  is  it  not  plain,  looking  at  this 
matter  fairly,  that  these  parties  cannot  come 
forward  into  Court,  and  enter  into  recognizance 
again  without  tacitly  conceding,  not  only  to  the 
compromising  of  their  own  self-respect,  but  in 
the  face  of  the  universal  world,  that  they  were 
wrong,  when  they  know  as  this  Court  must 
now  know  that  they  are  rigid ;  I  now  speak 
of  course  with  reference  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  came  into  custody.  And  now  cer 
tainly  your  Honor  cannot  fail  to  see  the  pre 
cise  position  in  which  they  are  placed,  and 
wholly  through  the  misunderstanding  of  the 
officers  of  the  Court.  They  most  assuredly 
have  never  coveted  imprisonment.  There  is 
nothing  in  such  a  mode  of  life  to  gratify  their 


refined  and  sensitive  tastes,  nor  have  they 
any  morbid  relish  for  self-inflicted  martyrdom. 
But  they  do  value  their  self-respect ;  they  do 
prize  the  dignity  of  manhood,  and  they  call 
upon  your  Honor  as  a  man,  as  well  as  a  Court, 
to  judicially  correct  a  judicial  misapprehension 
which  has  subjected  them  to  this  gross  injustice, 
and  not  require  them  to  regain  their  freedom 
at  the  price  of  their  manhood.  Am  I  asking 
too  much  then  when  I  ask^  as  I  now  do,  that 
the  Court  will  direct  a  correction  of  the  Journal, 
so  that  it  will  appear  that  as  these  parties  were 
placed  in  custody  by  a  mistake,  that  that  mis 
take  is  corrected,*  and  they  can  go  forth  honor 
ably.  It  seems  to  me  that  I  am  not  asking  too 
much.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Court  will  not 
hesitate  to  grant  such  a  request.  That  it  will 
gladly  direct  such  a  correction  of  the  Journal, 
to  be  made,  that  it  may  no  longer  prevent  the 
truth  and  work  gross  injustice.  This  is  not 
asking  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Court  that 
will  reflect  upon  the  veracity  or  dignity  of  any 
officer  of  the  Court,  and  least  of  all  upon  the 
Court  itself.  It  is  asking  simply  the  correc 
tion  of  a  judicial  misapprehension  by  judicial 
direction.  It  is  asking  on  behalf  of  these 
defendants  what  the  Court  will  always  grant  to 
every  one  else,  that  if  a  misapprehension  has 
inadvertently  crept  into  the  record,  it  may  be 
set  right  to  their  advantage,  and  to  the  advan 
tage  of  truth  and  justice,  objects  that  Courts 
have  generally  pretended  to  have  in  view. 

Judge  BELDEN  replied. 

I  wish  to  say  a  very  few  words  with  refer 
ence  to  the  extraordinary  request  the  gentle 
man  has  just  preferred.  \ 

He  professes  to  have  asked  nothing  that 
would,  if  granted,  compromise  the  dignity  of 
the  Court,  and  yet  in  the  same  breath  we  have 
the  declaration  that  his  clients  stand  and  have 
stood  for  three  weeks  upon  the  merest  techni 
cality,  upon  which  they  are  at  issue  with  the 
Court.  Why,  where  else  do  your  clients  stand  ? 
Where  else  have  they  stood  ever  since  they 
have  been  in  prison  ?  if  what  you  say  is  said 
sincerely.  Now  here  are  two  or  three  things 
about  which  my  friend  on  the  other  side  will 
not  differ  with  me.  And  I  refer  now  to  the 
circumstances  preceding  the  commitment  of 
these  individuals.  He.  knows,  I  know,  your 
Honor  knows,  and  he  admits  now,  that  when 
the  motion  was  made  to  change  the  relative  po 
sition  of  these  parties  to  this  Court,  it  was  the 
very  motion  which  he  says  here  would  be  ap 
propriate,  and  that  was,  that  individuals,  who, 
by  unparalleled  leniency  on  the  part  of  your 
Honor,  had  been  permitted  to  go  at  large  upon 
their  own  personal  recognizances  for  so  many 
months  after  they  were  indicted  for  crime,  that 
these  individuals,  thus  long  and  largely  privi 
leged,  when  a  "  stage  in  the  trial "  had  been 
reached,  by  the  conviction  of  one  of  their  num 
ber,  after  a  full  and  impartial  hearing  of  testi 
mony  and  argument,  in  which  it  became  my 
duty  to  look  more  particularly  after  the  cer- 


174 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


tainty  of  their  presence  ;  and  -when  they  had 
already  surrendered  themselves  into  custody  by 
surrendering  their  recognizances,  that  I  made 
the  motion  that  the  security  be  raised  from  re 
cognizances  to  bail  with  sureties.  And  this  is 
the  very  motion  which  the  gentleman  has  just 
admitted  to  be  a  proper  one. 

But  the  gentleman  was  not  satisfied  with  this, 
but  wished  to  go  two  or  three  steps  in  the  rear. 
He  states  that  upon  my  application  the  cases 
were  delayed 

[Mr.  RIDDLE  corrected  the  gentleman  ;  the 
statements  of  which  this  last  was  the  first  were 
made  in  the  affidavit  just  read  by  Judge  Til- 
den.] 

that  the  cases  were  delayed  till  the  7th 

of  March.  I  say  this  was  not  so.  Not  to  im 
pugn  him  ;  I  charge  nothing  beyond  a  mistake. 
I  wished  to  take  up  the  cases  as  soon  as  ten  or 
twelve  days  from  the  time  of  their  appearance. 
The  Grand  Jury  had  adjourned  some  two 
weeks  before  the  bills  were  properly  returned, 
without  my  being  three  minutes  in  the  Grand 
Jury  Room  while  the  testimony  was  being  given 
before  them,  and  I  could  not  keep  the  witnesses 
here  at  the  expense  of  the  Government.  I 
was  willing  and  anxious  to  take  up  the  cases  so 
soon  as  I  could  send  for  witnesses,  which  would 
not  be  longer  than  ten  or  twelve  days ;  it 
would  have  been  much  more  convenient  for  me 
to  have  gone  on  then,  but  the  learned  counsel 
who  then  appeared  for  the  defence,  suggested 
the  8th  of  March,  to  which  the  Court  acceded. 
The  postponement  from  the  8th  of  March  to 
the  5th  of  April  was  made  by  my  request,  and 

freatly  to  my  own  accommodation,  for  which 
indness  and  indulgence  on  the  part  of  the 
counsel  for  the  defence  I  desire  to  express  my 
sincere  thanks. 

But  now  to  the  other  matter.  "When  Bush- 
nell  was  convicted  it  became  my  duty,  in  be 
half  of  the  United  States,  which  I  represent, 
to  put  him  in  custody.  And  when  the  verdict 
of  the  jury  was  brought  in  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  confusion,  and  here  our  difference  of 
understanding  occurred.  The  confusion  arose 
out  of  the  question  whether  the  jury  could  sit 
on  the  second  case.  I  simply  objected  to  the 
challenge  of  the  array.  I  never  intimated  but 
that  the  jury  could  be  challenged  for  cause.  I 
believed  they  would  nearly  all  excuse  them 
selves.  Your  Honor  overruled  me.  I  thought 
I  was  right,  and  think  so  still,  but  submitted  to 
the  ruling  without  a  complaint  or  a  murmur. 
In  the  midst  of  this  confusion  and  excitement 
the  learned  counsel  for  these  defendants  had 
their  clients  called  and  surrendered  into  cus 
tody. 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  —  That 's  false,  utterly  false. 

Judge  SPALDIXG.  — That 's  a  lie. 

Judge  BELDEN.  Well,  Gentlemen,  I  can 
not  believe  you  mean  to  seriously  insult  me ; 
but  if  you  do,  I  have  only  to  retort  upon  you. 
I  say  it  is  true  as  I  have  stated  it.  They  had 
their  clients  called  and  surrendered  of  their 


own  motion  into  the  custody  of  the  Marshal, 
and  then  notified  the  Court  that  they  them 
selves  would  back  out,  your  Honor,  that  they  'd 
have  nothing  farther  to  do  with  the  defence  of 
these  men.  And  when  this  excitement  had 
passed  away  and  the  Court  was  about  adjourn 
ing,  I  did  think  that  in  the  discharge  of  my 
duty  as  counsel  for  the  Government,  it  might 
be  ^proper  for  me  to  make  a  motion,  that  by 
giving  some  reasonable  security  they  might  be 
released  from  custody  again.  Again,  your 
Honor  overruled  me,  and  said  they  could  go 
out  as  before  upon  their  personal  recogniz 
ances.  And  again,  I  submitted  without  com 
plaint. 

But  I  do  say  that  when  these  gentlemen, 
beseeching  a  favor,  stand  here  and  put  the 
question  of  grace  upon  the  ground  that  your 
Honor  is  wrong,  that  the  Clerk  is  wrong,  and 
that  I  am  always  wrong  and  they  're  always 
right,  that  they  do  not  exactly  occupy  the  sup 
pliant  and  respectful  attitude  which  they  claim 
to  your  Honor  that  they  do.  And  I  do  think 
that  it  is  my  duty  and  my  right  to  object,  to 
protest,  and  to  claim  that  these  men  now  occupy 
a  position  where  they  ought  to  be  required  to 
give  security,  and  I  think  the  amount  I  stated 
was  a  reasonable  amount.  I  have  no  disposi 
tion  to  ask  your  Honor  to  demand  of  them  un 
reasonable  bail ;  but  I  do  feel  it  my  imperious 
duty  to  ask  and  to  demand  that  these  persons 
occupy  the  position  of  other  persons  indicted 
for  crime,  and  a  portion  of  them  already  con 
victed  upon  fair  and  impartial  trial.  And  I 
do  this  in  no  bad  spirit.  Much  as  I  have  been 
abused  and  charged  with  all  manner  of  un 
worthy  motives,  I  have  not  taken  any  one  step 
which  I  thought  in  my  own  mind  would  even 
look  like  unkindness,  severity,  or  unfairness ; 
and  if  any  word  or  look  or  tone  or  manner 
of  mine  has  conveyed  to  any  of  you  a  different 
impression,  I  beg  that  I  may  be  excused  here, 
by  these  Gentlemen,  and "  by  your  Honor. 
Now  I  do  hope  that  these  gentlemen  will  not, 
here,  without  a  motion,  ask  your  Honor  that 
these  defendants  may  go  upon  their  own  recog^ 
nizances.  And  whether  the  record  be  true  or 
false,  no  harm  is  done  by  it  to  the  defendants. 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  I  do  not  wish  'to  press  my 
motion,  your  Honor,  but  I  wish  to  set  myself 
right  on  a  point  raised  by  the  gentleman. 

The  COURT.  Mr.  Riddle,  there  is  no  motion 
before  the  Court,  and  further  remarks  are  quite 
unnecessary. 

Mr.  RIDDLE,  May  I  not  correct  the  error 
of  the  gentleman,  by  which  I  am  placed  in  a 
false  position  ? 

The  COURT.  There  is  no  motion  before  the 
Court,  Mr.  Riddle ;  further  remarks  are  unne 
cessary. 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  I  understand  your  Honor, 
then,  to  deny  me  the  privilege  of  making  an 
explanation. 

The  COURT.  Further  remarks  are  quite  un 
necessary,  sir. 


©BERLIN-WELLINGTON  BESCUE. 


175 


So  far  as  regards  the  correction  of  the  Jour 
nal  entry,  I  certainty  would  not  allow  it  to 
stand  for  a  moment,  if  I  did  not  believe  it  to 
be  correct ;  and  until  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is 
not  correct,  I  certainly  shall  direct  no  amend 
ment  of  it.  My  own  recollection  accords  with 
it,  and  differs  from  that  of  the  counsel.  There 
has  been  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Court 
to  oppress  or  give  pain  to  these  defendants. 
Nothing  could  be  further  from  our  wishes,  or 
more  repugnant  to  our  feelings ;  and  until  some 
of  them  were  convicted,  we  were  willing  they 
should  go  at  large  on  their  own  recognizances, 
and  if  there  is  any  misapprehension  upon  either 
side,  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  punctilio  to  adhere 
to  it. 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  There  is  another  matter  that 
I  wish  to  speak  of,  your  Honor.  It  was  inti 
mated  to  your  Honor  this  morning,  that  the 
counsel  for  the  defence  might  be  disposed,  after 
some  consultation,  to  make  a  motion  in  the  case 
of  Langston.  I  have  to  say  to  your  Honor 
that  no  motion  will  be  made ;  Mr.  Langston  is 
prepared  to  receive  his  sentence  at  the  earliest 
convenience  of  the  Court.  - 

-Judge  SPALDING.  Until  when  will  the  other 
cases  be  continued,  your  Honor  ?  -  •  v-  •  • 
^The  COURT.  Until  the  July  term,  sir.  The 
Court  has  now  been  in  session  some  two  months, 
and  I  apprehend  that  the  defendants  will  not 
be  particularly  incommoded  by  so  brief  a  delay. 
-'Mr.  RIDDLE.  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of 
saying,  your  Honor,  if  permitted  to  say  nothing 
else,  that  the  counsel  for  these  defendants  do 
not  yet  stand  before  this  Court  in  the  attitude 
of  beyyars  ! 

Judge  BELDEX  and  the  *  COURT  at  once. 
By  no  means ;  certainly  not,  sir. 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  The  ^District- Attorney;  took 
pains  so  to  represent  it. ' 

Judge  BELDEX.  ^Oh,  'no/' sir  f  I" meant  no 
such  thing. 

Court  adjourned  to  meet  next  morning  at* 9 
o'clock. 

CLEVELAND,  May  12, 1859. 

Court  convened  at  10  o'clock.  :  The  usual 
opening  being  passed  and  the  crowded  house 
stilled,  the  Court  asked : —  •-***-  •»„  *•*.'+•• 

Mr.  Marshal,  is  the  defendant  Bushnell  in  the 
house  V 

Mr.  RIDDLE.  "Mr.  Bushnell  has  been  sen 
tenced,  your  Honor ;  perhaps  your  Honor  refers 
to  Mr.  Langston. 

The  COURT.  An  exchange  of  names  only; 
yes,  sir,  Mr.  Langston  was  meant.  r  Mr.  Lang 
ston,  you  will  stand  up,  sir. 

Mr.  LAXGSTOX  rose. 

The  COURT.  You  also  have  been  tried, 
Mr.  Langston,  by  a  jury,  and  convicted  of  a 
violation  of  the  criminal  laws  of  the  United 
States.  Have  you  or  your  counsel  any  thing 
to  say  why  the  sentence  of  the  law  should  not 
now  be  pronounced  upon  you  ? 

Mr.  LAXGSTOX.    1  am  for  the  first  time  in 


my  life  before  a  court  of  Justice,  charged  with 
the  violation  of  law,  and  am  now  about  to  be 
sentenced.  But  before  receiving  that  sentence 
I  propose  to  say  one  or  two  words  in  regard  to 
the  mitigation  of  that  sentence,  if  it  may  be  so 
construed.  I  cannot,  of  course,  and  do  not  ex 
pect  that  any  thing  which  I  may  say  will  in 
any  way  change  your  predetermined  line  of 
action.  I  ask  no  such  favor  at  your  hands. 

I  know  that  the  courts  of  this  country,  that 
the  laws  of  this  country,  that  the  governmental 
machinery  of  this  country,  are  so  constituted  as 
to  oppress  and  outrage  colored  men,  men  of  my 
complexion.  I  cannot,  then,  of  course,  expect, 
judging  from  the  past  history  of  the  country, 
any  mercy  from  the  laws,  from  the  constitution, 
or  from  the  courts  of  the  country. 

Some  days  prior  to  the  13th  of  September, 
1858,  happening  to  be  in  Oberlin  on  a  visit,  I 
found  the  country  round  about  there,  and  the 
village  itself,  filled  with  alarming  rumors  as  to 
the  fact  that  slave-catchers,  kidnappers,  negro- 
stealers,  were  lying  hidden  and  skulking  about, 
waiting  some  opportunity  to  get  their  bloody 
hands  on  some  helpless  creature  to  drag  him 
back  —  or  for  the  first  time  —  into  helpless  and 
life-long  bondage.  These  reports  becoming  cur 
rent  all  over  that  neighborhood,  old  men,  and 
women  and  innocent  children  became  exceed 
ingly  alarmed  for  their  safety.  It  was  not  un 
common  to  hear  mothers  say  that  they  dare  not 
send  their  children  to  school,  for  fear  they 
would  be  caught  up  and  carried  off  by  the  way. 
Some  of  these  people  had  become  free  by  long 
and  patient  toil  at  night,  after  working  the 
long,  long  day  for  cruel  masters,  and  thus  at 
length  getting  money  enough  to  buy  their  lib 
erty.  Others  had  become  free  by  means  of 
the  good-will  of  their  masters.  And  there 
were  others  who  had  become  free  —  to  their 
everlasting  honor  I  say  it  —  by  the  exercise  of 
their  own  God-given  powers; — by  escaping 
from  the  plantations  of  their  masters,  eluding 
the  blood-thirsty  patrols  and  sentinels  so  thickly 
scattered  all  along  their  path,  outrunning  blood 
hounds  and  horses,  swimming  rivers  and  fording 
swamps,  and  reaching  at  last,  through  incredible 
difficulties,  what  they,  in  their  delusion,  sup 
posed  to  be  free  soil.  These  three  classes  were 
in  Oberlin,  trembling  alike  for  their  safety,  be 
cause  they  well  knew  their  fate  should  those 
men-hunters  get  their  hands  on  them. 

In  the  midst  of  such  excitement,  the  13th 
day  of  September  was  ushered  in  —  a  day  ever 
to  be  remembered  in  the  history  of  that  place, 
and  I  presume  no  less  in  the  history  of  this 
Court  —  on  which  those  men,  by  lying  devices, 
decoyed  into  a  place  where  they  could  get 
their  hands  on  him  —  I  will  not  say  a  slave,  for 
I  do  not  know  that  — but  a  man,  a  brother,  who 
had  a  right  to  his  liberty  under  the  laws  of  God, 
under  the  laws  of  Nature,  and  under  the  Decla 
ration  of  American  Independence. 

Many  of  us  had  believed  that  there  would 
not  be  courage  to  make  a  seizure ;  but  in  the 


176 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


midst  of  all  this  excitement,  the  news  came  to 
us  like  a  flash  of  lightning  that  an  actual  seiz 
ure  by  means  of  fraudulent  pretences  had 
been  made ! 

Being  identified  with  that  man,  by  color,  by 
race,  by  manhood,  by  sympathies,  such  as  God 
has  implanted  in  us  all,  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  go 
and  do  what  I  could  toward  liberating  him.  I 
had  been  taught  by  my  Revolutionary  father  — 
and  I  say  this  with  all  due  respect  to  him  —  and 
by  his  honored  associates,  that  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  this  government  was  that  all  men 
have  a  right  to  life  and  liberty,  and  coming 
from  the  Old  Dominion,  I  brought  into  Ohio 
these  sentiments,  deeply  impressed  upon  my 
heart.  I  went  to  Wellington,  and  hearing  from 
the  parties  themselves  by  what  authority  the 
boy  was  held  in  custody,  I  conceived,  from  what 
little  knowledge  I  had  of  law,  that  they  had  no 
right  to  hold  him.  And  as  your  Honor  has  re 
peatedly  laid  down  the  law  in  this  Court,  that 
in  the  State  of  Ohio  a  man  is  presumed  to  be 
free  until  he  is  proven  to  be  legally  restrained 
of  his  liberty,  I  believed  that  upon  that  prin 
ciple  of  law  those  men  were  bound  to  take  their 
4  prisoner  before  the  very  first  magistrate  they 
found,  and  there  establish  the  facts  set  forth  in 
their  warrant,  and  that  until  they  did  this  every 
man  had  a  right  to  presume  that  their  claim 
was  unfounded,  and  to  institute  such  proceed 
ings  for  the  purpose  of  securing  an  investiga 
tion  as  he  might  find  warranted  by  the  laws  of 
this  State.  Now,  sir,  if  that  is  not  the  plain, 
common  sense  and  correct  view  of  the  law, 
then  I  have  been  misled  both  by  your  Honor, 
and  by  the  prevalent  received  opinion. 

it  is  said  that  they  had  a  warrant.  Why 
then  should  they  not  establish  its  validity  be 
fore  the  proper  officers  ?  And  I  stand  here  to 
day,  sir,  to  say,  that,  with  an  exception,  of  which 
I  shall  soon  speak,  to  procure  such  a  lawful  in 
vestigation  of  the  authority  under  which  they 
claimed  to  act,  was  the  part  I  took  in  that 
day's  proceedings,  and  the  only  part.  I  sup 
posed  it  to  be  my  duty  as  a  citizen  of  Ohio  — 
excuse  me  for  saying  that,  sir  —  as  an  outlaw  of 
the  United  States  [much  sensation],  to  do  what 
I  could  to  secure  at  least  this  form  of  Justice 
to  my  brother  whose  liberty  was  in  peril. — 
Whatever  more  than  that  has  been  sworn  to  on 
this  trial,  as  an  act  of  mine,  is  false,  ridiculously 
false.  When  I  found  these  men  refusing  to  go, 
according  to  the  law,  as  1  apprehended  it,  and 
subject  their  claim  to  an  official  inspection, 
and  that  nothing  short  of  a  habeas  corpus  would 
oblige  such  an  inspection,  I  was  willing  to  go 
even  thus  far,  supposing  in  that  county  a 
sheriff  might,  perhaps,  be  found  with  nerve 
enough  to  serve  it.  In  this  again  I  failed. 
Nothing  then  was  left  to  me,  nothing  to  the 
boy  in  custody,  but  the  confirmation  of  my  first 
belief  that  the  pretended  authority  was  worth 
less,  and  the  employment  of  those  means  of 
liberation  which  belong  to  us  all.  With  regard 
to  the  part  I  took  in  the  forcible  rescue,  which 


followed,  I  have  nothing  to  say,  farther  than 
I  have  already  said.  The  evidence  is  before 
you.  It  is  alleged  that  I  said,  "  we  will  have 
him  any  how."  This  1  NEVER  said.  I  did  say 
to  Mr.  Lowe,  what  I  honestly  believed  to  be  the 
truth,  that  the  crowd  were  very  much  excited, 
many  of  them  averse  to  longer  delay  and  bent 
upon  a  rescue  at  all  hazards;  and  that  he 
being  an  old  acquaintance  and  friend  of  mine, 
I  was  anxious  to  extricate  him  from  the  dan 
gerous  position  he  occupied,  and  therefore  ad 
vised  that  he  urge  Jennings  to  give  the  boy  up. 
Further  than  this  I  did  not  say,  either  to  him 
or  to  any  one  else. 

The  law  under  which  I  am  arraigned  is  an 
unjust  one,  orfe  made  to  crush  the  colored  man, 
and  one  that  outrages  every  feeling  of  Human 
ity,  as  well  as  every  rule  of  Right.  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  its  constitutionality;  and 
about  it  I  care  a  great  deal  less.  I  have  often 
heard' it  said  by  learned  and  good  men  that  it 
was  unconstitutional ;  I  remember  the  excite 
ment  that  prevailed  throughout  all  the  free 
States  when  it  was  passed ;  and  I  remember 
how  often  it  has  been  said  by  individuals,  con 
ventions,  communities,  and  legislatures,  that  it 
never  could  be,  never  should  be,  and  never 
was  meant  to  be  enforced.  I  had  always  be 
lieved,  until  the  contrary  appeared  in  the 
actual  institution  of  proceedings,  that  the  pro 
visions  of  this  odious  statute  would  never  be 
enforced  within  the  bounds  of  this  State. 

But  I  have  another  reason  to  offer  why  I 
should  not  be  sentenced,  and  one  that  I  think 
pertinent  to  the  case.  I  have  not  had  a  trial 
before  a  jury  of  my  peers.  The  common  law 
of  England  —  and  you  will  excuse  me  for  re 
ferring  to  that,  since  I  am  but  a  private  citizen 
and  not  a  lawyer —  was  that  every  man  should 
be  tried  before  a  jury  of  men  occupying  the 
same  position  in  the  social  scale  with  himself. 
That  lords  should  be  tried  before  »  jury  of 
lords ;  that  peers  of  the  realm  should  be  tried 
before  peers  of  the  realm ;  vassals  before  vas 
sals,  and  aliens  before  aliens,  and  they  must  not 
come  from  the  district  where  the  crime  was 
committed,  lest  the  prejudices  of  either  per 
sonal  friends  or  foes  should  affect  the  accused. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  guaran 
tees —  not  merely  to  its  citizens  —  but  to  all 
persons  a  trial  before  an  impartial  jury.  I 
have  had  no  such  trial. 

The  colored  man  is  oppressed  by  certain 
universal  and  deeply  fixed  prejudices.  Those 
jurors  are  well  known  to  have  shared  largely 
in  these  prejudices,  and  I  therefore  consider 
that  they  were  neither  impartial,  nor  were  they 
a  jury  of  my  peers.  And  the  prejudices  which 
white  people  have  against  colored  men,  grow 
out  of  this  fact :  that  we  have,  as  a  people, 
consented  for  two  hundred  years  to  be  slaves  of 
the  whites.  We  have  been  scourged,  crushed, 
and  cruelly  oppressed,  and  have  submitted  to 
it  all  tamely,  meekly,  peaceably ;  I  mean  as  a 
people,  and  with  rare  individual  exceptions; 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


177 


and  to-day  you  see  us  thus,  meekly  submitting 
to  the  penalties  of  an  infamous  law.  Now  the 
Americans  have  this  feeling,  and  it  is  an  hon 
orable  one,  that  they  will  respect  those  who 
will  rebel  at  oppression,  but  despise  those  who 
tamely  submit  to  outrage  and  wrong;  and 
while  our  people  as  a  people  submit,  they  will 
as  a  people  be  despised.  Why,  they  will  hardly 
meet  on  terms  of  equality  with  us  in  a  whiskey 
shop,  in  a  car,  at  a  table,  or  even  at  the  altar 
of  God.  So  thorough  and  hearty  a  contempt 
have  they  for  those  who  will  meekly  lie  still 
under  the  heel  of  the  oppressor.  The  jury 
came  into  the  box  with  that  feeling.  They 
knew  they  had  that  feeling,  and  so  the  Court 
knows  now,  and  knew  then.  The  gentlemen 
who  prosecuted  me  have  that  feeling,  the  Court 
itself  has  that  feeling,  and  even  the  counsel 
who  defended  me  have  that  feeling. 

I  was  tried  by  a  jury  who  were  prejudiced ; 
before  a  Court  that  was  prejudiced ;  prosecuted 
by  an  officer  who  was  prejudiced,  and  de 
fended,  though  ably,  by  counsel  that  were  pre 
judiced.  And  therefore  it  is,  your  Honor,  that 
1  urge  by  all  that  is  good  and  great  in  man 
hood,  that  I  should  not  be  subjected  to  the 
pains  and  penalties  of  this  oppressive  law, 
when  I  Lave  not  been  tried,  either  by  a  jury  of 
my  peers,  or  by  a  jury  that  were  impartial. 

One  more  word,  sir,  and  I  have  done.  I 
went  to  Wellington,  knowing  that  colored  men 
have  no  rights  in  the  United  States  which  white 
men  are  bound  to  respect ;  that  the  courts  had 
so  decided  ;  that  Congress  had  so  enacted ;  that 
the  people  had  so  decreed. 

There  is  not  a  spot  in  this  wide  country,  not 
even  by  the  altars  of  God,  nor  in  the  shadow  of 
the  shafts  that  tell  the  imperishable  fame  and 
glory  of  the  heroes  of  the  Revolution ;  no,  nor 
in  the  old  Philadelphia  Hall,  where  any  colored 
man  may  dare  to  ask  a  mercy  of  a  white  man. 
Let  me  stand  in  that  Hall,  and  tell  a  United 
States  Marshal  that  my  father  was  a  Revolu 
tionary  soldier ;  that  he  served  under  Lafay 
ette,  and  Ibught  through  the  whole  war ;  and 
that  he  always  told  me  that  he  fought  for  my 
freedom  as  much  as  for  his  own ;  and  he  would 
sneer  at  me,  and  clutch  me  with  his  bloody 
fingers,  and  say  he  had  a  right  to  make  me  a 
slave  !  And  when  I  appeal  to  Congress,  they 
say  he  has  a  right  to  make  me  a  slave ;  when  I 
appeal  to  the  people,  they  say  he  has  a  right  to 
make  me  a  slave,  and  when  I  appeal  to  your 
Honor,  your  Honor  says  he  has  a  right  to  make 
me  a  slave,  and  if  any  man,  white  or  black, 
seeks  an  investigation  of  that  claim,  they  make 
themselves  amenable  to  the  pains  and  penalties 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  for  BLACK  MEN 

HAVE  NO    RIGHTS    WHICH    WHITE   MEX    ARE 

BOUND  TO  RESPECT.  [Great  applause.]  I, 
going  to  Wellington  with  the  full  knowledge  of 
all  this,  knew  that  if  that  man  was  taken  to 
Columbus,  he  was  hopelessly  gone,  no  matter 
whether  he  had  ever  been  in  slavery  before  or 
not.  I  knew  that  I  was  in  the  same  situation 

23 


myself,  and  that  by  the  decision  of  your  Honor, 
if  any  man  whatever  were  to  claim  me  as  his 
slave  and  seize  me,  and  my  brother,  being  a 
lawyer,  should  seek  to  get  out  a  writ  of -habeas 
corpus  to  expose  the  falsity  of  the  claim,  he 
would  be  thrust  into  prison  under  one  provision 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  for  interfering 
with  the  man  claiming  to  be  in  pursuit  of  a 
fugitive,  and  I,  by  the  perjury  of  a  solitary 
wretch,  would,  by  another  of  its  provisions,  be 
helplessly  doomed  to  life-long  bondage,  without 
the  possibility  of  escape. 

Some  persons  may  say  that  there  is  no  dan 
ger  of  free  persons  being  seized  and  carried  off 
as  slaves.  No  one  need  labor  under  such  a  de 
lusion.  Sir,  four  of  the  eight  persons  who  were 
first  carried  back  under  the  act  of  1850,  were 
afterwards  proved  to  be  free  men.  The  pre 
tended  owner  declared  that  they  were  not  his, 
after  his  agent  had  "  satisfied  the  Commissioner  " 
that  they  were,  by  his  oath.  They  were  free 
persons,  but  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  oath  of 
one  man.  And  but  last  Sabbath  afternoon  a 
letter  came  to  me  from  a  gentleman  in  St.  Louis, 
informing  me  that  a  young  lady,  who  was  for 
merly  under  my  instruction  at  Columbus,  a  free 
person,  is  now  lying  in  the  jail  at  that  place, 
claimed  as  the  slave  of  some  wretch  who  never 
saw  her  before,  and  waiting  for  testimony  from 
relatives  at  Columbus  to  establish  her  freedom. 
I  could  stand  here  by  the  hour  and  relate  such 
instances.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  they 
must  be  constantly  occurring.  A  letter  was  not 
long  since  found  upon  the  person  of  a  coun 
terfeiter  when  arrested,  addressed  to  him  by 
some  Southern  gentleman,  in  which  the  writer 
says :  — 

"  Go  among  the  niggers ;  find  out  their  marks 
and  scars ;  make  good  descriptions  and  send  to 
me,  and  I'll  find  masters  for  'em" 

That  is  the  way  men  are  carried  "  back  "  to 
slavery. 

But  in  view  of  all  the  facts  I  say,  that  if 
ever  again  a  man  is  seized  near  me,  and  is  about 
to  be  carried  Southward  as  a  slave,  before  any 
legal  investigation  has  been  had,  I  shall  hold  it 
to  be  my  duty,  as  I  held  it  that  day,  to  secure 
for  him,  if  possible,  a  legal  inquiry  into  the  char 
acter  of  the  claim  by  which  he  is  held.  And  I 
go  farther ;  I  say  that  if  it  is  adjudged  illegal  to 
procure  even  such  an  investigation,  then  we  are 
thrown  back  upon  those  last  defences  of  our 
rights,  which  cannot  be  taken  from  us,  and 
which  God  gave  us  that  we  need  not  be  slaves. 
I  ask  your  Honor,  while  I  say  this,  to  place 
yourself  in  my  situation,  and  you  will  say  with 
me,  that  if  your  brother,  if  your  friend,  if  your 
wife,  if  your  child,  had  been  seized  by  men  who 
claimed  them  as  fugitives,  and  the  law  of  the 
land  forbade  you  to  ask  any  investigation,  and 
precluded  the  possibility  of  any  legal  protec 
tion  or  redress,  —  then  you  will  say  with  me, 
that  you  would  not  only  demand  the  protection 
of  the  law,  but  you  would  call  in  your  neigh 
bors  and  your  friends,  and  would  ask  them  to 


178 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


say  with  you,  that  these  your  friends  could  not 
be  taken  i»to  slavery. 

And  now  I  thank'  you  for  this  leniency,  this 
indulgence,  in  giving  a  man  unjustly  condemn 
ed,  by  a  tribunal  before  which  he  is  declared  to 
have  no  rights,  the  privilege  of  speaking  in  his 
own  behalf.  I  know  that  it  will  do  nothing  toward 
mitigating  your  sentence,  but  it  is  a  privilege  to 
be  allowed  to  speak,  and  I  thank  you  for  it.  I 
shall  submit  to  the  penalty,  be  it  what  it  may. 
But  I  stand  up  here  to  say,  that  if  for  doing 
what  I  did  on  that  day  at  Wellington,  I  am  to 
go  in  jail  six  months,  and  pay  a  fine  of  a  thou 
sand  dollars,  according  to  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  and  such  is  the  protection  the  laws  of  this 
country  afford  me,  I  must  take  upon  myself  the 
responsibility  of  self-protection;  and  when  I 
come  to  be  claimed  by  some  perjured  wretch  as 
his  slave,  I  shall  never  be  taken  into  slavery. 
And  as  in  that  trying  hour  I  would  have  others 
do  to  me,  as  I  would  call  upon  my  friends  to 
help  me ;  as  I  would  call  upon  you,  your  Honor, 
to  help  me ;  as  I  would  call  upon  you  [to  the 
District- Attorney],  to  help  me;  and  upon  you 
[to  Judge  Bliss],  and  upon  you  [to  his  counsel], 
so  lielp  me  GOD  !  I  stand  here  to  say  that  I  will 
do  all  I  can,  for  any  man  thus  seized  and  held, 
though  the  inevitable  penalty  of  six  months  im 
prisonment  and  one  thousand  dollars  fine  for 
each  offence  hangs  over  me  !  We  have  a  com 
mon  humanity.  You  would  do  so ;  your  man 
hood  would  require  it ;  and  no  matter  what  the 
laws  might  be,  you  would  honor  yourself  for 
doing  it;  your  friends  would  honor  you  for  do 
ing  it ;  your  children  to  all  generations  would 
honor  you  for  doing  it ;  and  every  good  and 
honest  man  would  say,  you  had  done  right! 
[Great  and  prolonged  applause,  in  spite  of  the 
efforts  of  the  Court  and  the  Marshal.] 

The  COURT.  These  manifestations  cannot 
be  allowed  here.  The  Marshal  has  orders  to 
clear  the  room  if  they  are  repeated. 

You  have  done  injustice  to  the  Court,  Mr. 
Langston,  in  thinking  that  nothing  you  might 
say  could  effect  a  mitigation  of  your  sentence. 
You  have  presented  considerations  to  which  I 
shall  attach  much  weight. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  the  evidence  that  was 
given  to  the  jury;  of  the  circumstances  that 
were  related ;  of  your  action  in  relation  to  the 
investigation  of  the  cause  of  the  detention  of 
the  fugitive,  and  of  your  advice  to  others  to 
pursue  a  legal  course ;  and  although  I  am  not 
disposed  to  question  the  integrity  of  the  jury, 
still  I  see  mitigating  circumstances  in  the  trans 
action  which  should  not  require,  in  my  opinion, 
the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law.  This  Court 
does  not  make  laws ;  that  belongs  to  another 
tribunal.  We  sit  here  under  the  obligations  of 
an  oath  to  execute  them,  and  whether  they  be 
bad  or  whether  they  be  good,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
say.  We  appreciate  fully  your  condition,  and 
while  it  excites  the  cordial  sympathies  of  our 
better  natures,  still  the  law  must  be  vindicated. 
On  reflection,  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  the 


>enalty  in  your  case  should  be  comparatively 
ight.  It  is,  therefore,  the  sentence  of  the 
Dourt,  that  you  pay  a  fine  of  one  hundred  dol- 
ars ;  that  you  be  confined  in  the  jail  at  Cuya- 
loga  County,  under  the  direction  of  the  Mar 
shal,  for  a  period  of  twenty  days  from  date ; 
and  that  you  pay  the  costs  of  this  prosecution : 
and  that  in  case  any  casualty  or  other  occur 
rence  should  render  your  confinement  there 
nsecure,  that  the  Marshal  see  the  sentence  ex 
ecuted  in  any  other  county  jail  within  this  Dis- 
;rict. 

Judge  SHERLOCK  J.  ANDREWS  then  in 
formed  the  Court  that  Matthew  De  Wolfe,  Ab- 
ner  Loveland,  and  Loring  Wadsworth,  citizens 
of  Wellington,  indicted  for  participating  in  the 
rescue  case,  wished  him  to  enter  a  plea  of  nolle 
contenders,  and  were  ready  to  submit  themselves 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Court. 

Judge  ANDREWS  said,  that  he  had  been  in 
formed  by  the  defendants  that  they  were  not 
represented  by  Counsel,  and  he  had  been  de 
sired  to  bring  their  case  to  the  attention  of  the 
Court.  He  said  they  were  among  the  oldest 
citizens  of  Lorain  county,  and  law-abiding 
men,  enjoying  in  a  high  degree  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  their  fellow-citizens,  and  that 
they  were  unwilling  any  longer  to  occupy  a 
position  in  which  they  were  charged  with  a 
wilful  violation  of  the  law.  Their  connection 
with  this  rescue  was  entirely  incidental,  and 
they  had  assembled  with  other  citizens  to  arrest 
the  progress  of  a  fire  which  had  broken  out  in 
their  village,  and  had  been  hard  at  work  in  sav 
ing  property,  and  while  thus  engaged,  were  in 
formed  that  one  of  their  magistrates  had  issued 
a  warrant  for  the  apprehension  of  two  men 
charged  with  an  attempt  to  kidnap  a  citizen  of 
the  State.  The  feelings  of  the  people  were 
strongly  roused  before,  and  when  this  new  ele 
ment  was  added  to  the  other  cause  of  excite 
ment,  the  defendants  admit  that  they  yielded  to 
the  impulse  that  moved  others,  and  that  they 
did  at  first  give  encouragment  to  the  officer  in 
his  attempt  to  execute  the  process  in  his  hands, 
but  they  say,  and  are  abundantly  able  to  show, 
that  from  the  time  they  became  satisfied  that 
the  negro  was  held  by  lawful  authority,  they 
abstained  from  all  participation  in  the  proceed 
ings. 

J\Ir.  Andrews  said  that,  whether  under  the 
rulings  of  the  Court  in  relation  to  the  respon 
sibilities  of  men  engaged  in  the  execution  of 
a  common  unlawful  purpose,  or  in  relation  to 
the  prudence  and  vigilance  which  should  be  ex 
ercised  in  these  cases,  to  ascertain  the  authority 
under  which  the  fugitive  is  held,  whether  under 
these  rulings  (which  he  believed  to  be  law) 
these  men  had  undesignedly  been  guilty  of  a 
technical  violation  of  the  statute,  whether,  in 
the  tumult  and  confusion  of  the  hour,  they  were 
as  careful  in  their  inquiries,  as  guarded  in  their 
conversation  and  conduct  as  they  ought  to  have 
been,  he  would  not  pretend  to  say ;  but  this  ho 
would  say,  that  they  never  for  a  moment  cher- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


179 


ished  a  purpose  to  resist  the  law,  that  they  nev 
er  did,  in  fact,  knowingly  and  intentionally, 
resist  it ;  and  that,  if  they  were  betrayed  into 
conduct  which  amounted  to  a  punishable  of 
fence,  it  was  attributable  solely  to  a  misappre 
hension,  on  their  part,  of  what  their  rights  and 
obligations  were.  They  were  desirous  that  their 
position  should  be  perfectly  understood ;  they 
did  not  invoke  sympathy  because  they  had  vio 
lated  the  law ;  the  agitation  connected  with 
these  trials  has  brought  to  the  surface  a  variety 
of  opinions  in  relation  to  the  course  that  should 
be  pursued  when  attempts  are  made  to  enforce 
this  law.  Good  men  among  us  differ  in  opinion 
as  to  what  the  duty  of  a  citizen  is  in  such  emer 
gencies.  Some  counsel  a  disregard  of  the  law 
altogether.  Some  think  that  the  unanimous  de 
cision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  affirming  its  constitutionality,  carries 
with  it  no  authority  and  imposes  no  obligation 
to  obedience ;  and  some,  impelled  by  stronger 
sympathies,  and  to  more  intense  hatred  of  the 
law,  think  that,  when  the  owner  of  a  slave 
comes  into  this  State,  and  asserts  his  right  un 
der  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  to  the  person  and  services  of  a  fugitive, 
he  should  be  resisted,  even  to  the  shedding  of 
Hood!  I! 

Now  these  defendants  have  no  controversy 
with  those  who  hold  these  opinions,  but  they 
wish  the  Court  to  understand  that  they  arc  the 
sentiments  of  a  later  school  than  that  m  which 
they  were  trained.  They  have  no  conception 
of  a  worse  government  than  that  would  be, 
which  the  Constitution  and  laws  should  set 
aside,  and  every  man  should  become  a  law  unto 
himself.  They  believe  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
good  citizen  to  submit  to  the  laws  of  the  land ; 
that,  when  the  constitutionality  of  a  national 
law  has  been  judicially  determined  by  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  (the  tribunal 
created  for  the  very  purpose  of  deciding  such 
questions),  its  decisions,  while  they  stand,  are  to 
be  followed  by  respect  and  obedience,  and  they 
sympathize  with  no  effort  that  can  be  made  to 
bring  the  State  Government  in  conflict  with  the 
National  Government,  or  to  cause  to  be  depre 
cated  or  undervalued  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  With  all  its  imperfections  — 
with  all  its  compromises  —  even  with  the  stain 
of  slavery  upon  it,  they  still  esteem  it  a  priv 
ilege  to  live  under  such  a  Constitution,  and  be 
lieve  that,  while  the  people  of  a  State  acknowl 
edge  its  authority  and  enjoy  its  benefits,  they 
ought,  in  good  faith,  to  carry  out  even  its  ob 
noxious  provisions.  These  gentlemen  are  ut 
terly  opposed  to  slavery  and  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law;  but  they  think  that 
bad  laws,  under  our  system  of  government,  can 
be  better  encountered  in  a  constitutional  way 
than  by  an  armed  resistance.  These  are,  in 
substance,  the  remarks  which  I  have  been  re 
quested  by  the  defendants  to  submit  in  their 
behalf;  and  while  they  deny  that  they  have 
knowingly  violated  the  law,  while  they  insist 


upon  having  their  protest  recorded  that  they 
are  not  guilty,  as  they  stand  charged  in  the  in 
dictment,  they  still  instruct  me  to  say  that  they 
will  no  longer  contend  with  the  Government 
in  these  prosecutions. 

Judge  Andrews  concluded  with  saying,  that 
he  thought  the  Court  would  concur  with  him  in 
the  opinion  that  the  course  now  pursued  by  the 
defendants  was  one  not  unbecoming  good  citi 
zens,  that  it  would  go  farther  than  any  pains  or 
penalties  to  sustain  the  supremacy  of  law,  and 
that  as  against  such  men,  under  such  circum 
stances,  the  public  justice  could  be  adequately 
vindicated  by  the  infliction  of  the  mildest  pun 
ishment. 

The  COURT  inquired  of  the  District- Attorney 
if  he  had  any  remarks  to  make. 

Judge  BELDEX.  Nothing,  may  it  please  the 
Court,  but  to  add  my  voice  to  that  of  Judge 
Andrews  that  a  light  punishment  may  be  in 
flicted. 

After  Judge  BELDEX  had  concluded,  the 
Court  proceeded  to  pass  sentence  upon  them. 
In  consideration  of  the  facts  stated,  he  sentenced 
them  to  pay  a  fine  of  820  each,  to  pay  the  costs 
of  prosecution,  and  to  be  committed  to  jail  for 
twenty-four  hours. 

Court  then  adjourned  until  Saturday  morning. 

The  record  of  the  Court  is  the  same  in  these 
cases  as  in  the  cases  of  the  four  sentenced  a  few 
days  previous  on  a  similar  plea,  with  the  follow 
ing  remarkable  exception :  — 

"  And  the  District-Attorney  stipulating  that  the 
record  in  this  cause  shall  not  be  used  to  his  pre- 
judice  in  any  civil  action" 

The  following  editorial,  cut  from  the  Morning 
Leader,  conveys  the  sentiment  which  seemed  to 
be  general  among  the  friends  of  the  defend 
ants,  at  the  time  of  these  sentences;  and  so 
far  as  it  ventures  upon  a  rehearsal  of  facts,  it  Ls 
believed  to  make  only  reliable  statements. 

BTTB-SAIXTISM:.  —  HOW  IT  WAS  DONE. 

Messrs.  Loveland,  Wadsworth,  and  De Wolfe, 
the  "  old  friends "  of  Judge  Andrews,  humili 
ated  as  they  have  been  by  their  volunteer  ad 
vocate,  deserved  better  treatment  and  a  better 
fate.  They  are  substantial  men  of  Lorain,  be 
long  to  the  class  of  hardy  pioneers  who  broke 
up  the  wilderness,  built  the  dwellings,  school- 
houses,  and  churches  of  the  county,  "and  have 
ever  sustained  irreproachable  characters  as  good 
men  and  good  citizens.  No  fugitive  from  slavery 
ever  went  unfed  from  their  hospitable  homes, 
and  their  hatred  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  is 
just  as  deep  seated  as  their  hatred  of  the  ac 
cursed  institution  which  Dred  Scott  Courts  and 
pro-slavery  Administrations  are  laboring  with 
true  Algerine  ferocity  to  force  upon  the  Free 
States  and  Territories  of  the  Republic.  They 
have  homesteads,  hard  earned  and  dear  to 


180 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


them,  have  reached  the  down-hill  side  of  life, 
and  in  acting  out  the  noblest  sympathies  of 
nature  and  religion  towards  a  fellow  man,  un 
wittingly  found  themselves  in  the  tender  mer 
cies  of  a  Federal  Court  despotism.  The  relent 
less  Government  pursuers  held  them  and  their 
homes  in  their  grasp.  The  vindictive  charge 
of  the  modern  Jeffreys  in  the  convictions  had 
left  them  no  hope.  Fines  and  costs  —  the  lat 
ter  oppressively  enormous  in  the  U.  S.  District 
Court  —  would  leave  them  in  their  old  age 
homeless  and  penniless.  These  considerations 
pressed  heavily  upon  them.  They  sought  legal 
advice  of  an  "  old  friend  "  in  whom  they  placed 
implicit  confidence.  The  result,  preconcerted 
between  the  Court  and  counsel  no  doubt,  was 
as  humiliating  to  them,  as  the  speech  preceding 
it  was  uncalled  for,  and  astounding  to  the  pub 
lic.  If  the  self-abasement  of  the  Advocate  to 
the  Slave  power  and  its  Government  officials 
was  voluntary,  the  "  old  friends,"  who  have  not 
a  pulsation  in  sympathy  with  either,  should  have 
been  spared  the  pain  and  disgrace  of  a  like, 
but  on  their  part,  an  involuntary  degradation. 

The  way  the  thing  was  done  is  a  subject  of 
much  inquiry  by  the  public.  A  portion  of  the 
modus  operandi  is  stated  as  follows :  —  The 
Wellingtonites  were  assured  by  the  U.  S.  Dis 
trict-Attorney  that  he  did  not  consider  them  in 
reality  responsible  for  the  Rescue.  The  Ober- 
linites  are  the  ones  the  Government  wishes  to 
punish;  and  he  would  advise  them  to  trust 
themselves  to  the  mercy  of  the  Court,  and  give 
their  influence  towards  maintaining  the  law  of 
the  land. 

The  Wellington  men  replied  that  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law  outraged  all  the  principles  of 
right,  and  that  they  never  could  obey  it,  or  admit 
that  they  had  done  wrong  in  the  case  of  John. 

District- Attorney  Belden  becomes  a  "sub- 
saint"  and  urges,  it  is  true,  that  law  is  an  out 
rageous  law,  and  I  am  frank  to  confess  that  even 
I  would  not  obey  it  under  certain  circumstances. 
If  a  fugitive  slave  should  come  to  me  for  money 
I  would  give  it  to  him  and  tell  him  to  go  on  his 
way.  Now  you  were  on  the  ground,  and  if  you 
go  to  trial  you  will  certainly  be  convicted.  We 
shall  convict  all  the  Oberlinites.  Patton  and 
Cowles  will  be  indicted. 

The  Wellingtonitcs  encouraged  by  the  Dis 
trict-Attorney's  " sub-saintism"  conclude  that 
he  is  ready  to  meet  them  half  way,  and  they 
consent  to  throw  themselves  on  the  Court,  some 
of  them,  at  least,  understanding  that  they  were 
not  to  withdraw  their  plea  of  "  not  guilty ; "  and 
that  their  counsel  should  only  protest  that  they 
were  innocent,  and  that  they  had  in  no  wise 
changed  their  minds  upon  that  law. 

Pilate  kissed  them,  and  Andrew(s)  crucified 
them.  How  crucified,  let  the  following  card 
proclaim  from  the  house-tops :  — 

MR.  LOVELAXD'S  STATEMENT. 
The  card  below  is  inserted  on  personal  re 
quest  made  by  Mr.  Loveland :  —  Herald. 


MESSRS.  EDITORS  :  —  After  reading  your  re 
marks  in  last  evening's  Herald,  in  reference  to 
me,  I  deem  it  due  to  myself  to  ask  you  to  state 
that  I  did  not  intend  to  authorize  my  counsel 
yesterday  to  give  my  views  on  government,  to 
the  Court;  and  disclaim  holding  to  many  of  the 
doctrines  expressed  by  him.  I  simply  author 
ized  him  to  enter  for  me  the  plea  of  nolle  con- 
tendere,  protesting  at  the  same  time  that  I  am 
not  guilty  of  violating  any  law,  and  requiring 
the  protest  to  be  entered  on  the  records  of  the 
Court.  ABNER  LOVELAND. 

About  this  time  the  following  manifesto  was 
published.  It  will  explain  itself. 

STATEMENT     OF     THE     OBERLIN    PRISONERS 
NOW   IN   JAIL. 

CUYAHOGA  COUNTY  JAIL,  | 
May  12,  1859.  j 

To  the  People  of  the  Western  Reserve  : 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  Lorain  county, 
now  confined  in  this  prison,  under  indictment 
for  alleged  violation  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act, 
have  reason  to  know  that  the  history  of  their 
incarceration  is  quite  generally  misapprehended, 
and  that  this  misapprehension  is  greatly  preju 
dicing  their  cause  with  the  public. 

It  is  to  state  the  facts  pertaining  to  the  im 
prisonment,  clearly  and  correctly,  and  to  define 
the  present  position  of  the  imprisoned,  that  this 
article  is  offered  to  your  consideration. 

To  make  the  statement  proposed  intelligible 
and  complete,  the  narration  must  begin  with 
the  arrest  which  brought  us  before  the  U.  S. 
Court.  At  the  rising  of  the  Grand  Jury  in  De 
cember  last,  Marshal  Johnson  visited  Oberlin, 
and  notified  the  indicted,  who  lived  there,  that 
he  had  warrants  for  their  arrest,  and  that  he 
should  expect  to  meet  them  in  Cleveland  at  a 
given  hour  on  the  next  day.  The  parties  on 
whom  the  notice  was  served  proved  their  ap 
preciation  of  the  politeness  of  the  Marshal,  m 
dispensing  with  the  usual  forms  of  arrest,  and 
their  disposition  to  give  prompt  answer  to  what 
ever  charges  the  law  might  bring  against  them, 
by  appearing  in  Court  at  the  time  appointed. 
Being  brought  to  the  bar,  they  declared  them 
selves  ready  and  anxious  for  immediate  trial. 
The  District- Attorney,  evidently  taken  by  sur 
prise  at  the  unexpected  promptness  of  the  de 
fence,  asked  delay.  The  defence  earnestly 
protested  against  an  adjournment  of  their 
cases.  The  Court,  however,  granted  the  mo 
tion  of  the  District-Attorney  ;  but,  in  consider 
ation  of  the  fact  that  the  defendants  had  made 
prompt  appearance,  and  that  they  had  been 
refused  trial,  discharged  them  on  their  personal 
recognizance,  instead  of  putting  them  under 
bail  as  the  prosecutor  had  asked  them  to  do. 
The  cases  were  set  for  trial  on  the  second  Tues 
day  of  March.  At  the  approach  of  that  time 
the  District- Attorney  asked  for  a  farther  con 
tinuance  of  the  cases  to  the  fifth  of  April.  The 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


181 


delay,  although  it  put  the  defence  to  great 
inconvenience,  was  conceded  by  its  counsel. 
When  the  appointed  time  at  length  came,  all 
the  indicted  who  had  been  arrested,  except 
one  gentleman  who  was  very  ill,  presented 
themselves  at  the  bar  of  the  Court,  nor  did 
any  of  them  fail  of  daily  attendance  during 
the  Bushnell  trial  without  the  express  permis 
sion  of  the  District- Attorney. 

In  the  course  of  the  Bushnell  trial  it  was 
made  clear  to  the  defence  that  there  was  a  de 
sire  on  the  part  of  the  Court  to  secure  the  con 
viction,  and  a  determination  on  the  part  of  the 
District- Attorney  to  bring  about  the  humiliation 
of  all  the  indicted.  The  proofs  of  a  purpose 
to  make  a  judicial  and  personal  war  upon  them 
were  so  plain,  that  the  defendants  could  not 
shut  their  eyes  to  them.  They  felt  constrained, 
therefore,  to  be  on  their  guard  and  to  be  watch 
ful  against  emergencies  which  might  involve 
them  in  lasting  injury  and  reproach.  This 
purpose,  however,  did  not  prevent  their  con 
tinuing  the  full  compliance  with  the  rules  of 
the  Court,  and  with  the  terms  of  their  recog 
nizances,  which  they  had  before  rendered. 

Affairs  being  in  this  posture,  the  Govern 
ment  evidently  seeking  opportunities  for  assault, 
and  the  defence  looking  well  to  its  means  for 
parrying  the  assault,  the  Bushnell  trial  came  to 
an  end.  On  the  rendition  of  the  verdict,  con 
versation  arose  between  counsel  on  the  two 
sides  as  to  what  case  was  to  be  tried  next.  It 
was  finally  determined  by  the  Government  that 
Langston's  case  should  be  called  on,  and  coun 
sel  for  the  defence,  which  had  previously  said 
that  it  was  not  ready  to  go  on  with  that 
case,  signified  that  it  would  be  ready  by  the 
time  the  jury  was  drawn.  What  was  the  sur 
prise  of  counsel  at  hearing  the  Court  declare 
that  the  same  jury  was  to  try  all  the  "  res 
cue  "  cases  —  all  of  them,  be  it  noted,  involv 
ing  the  same  material  points.  How  then  could 
a  jury  just  having  risen  from  the  consideration 
of  one  of  them,  impartially  address  itself  to  the 
consideration  of  another?  Against  this  re 
markable  order  of  Court,  the  counsel  for  the 
defence  made  earnest  protest,  and  finally  de 
clared  that  "  under  such  a  ruling,  the  Court 
might  go  on  with  the  cases  as  fast  as  it  pleased, 
the  defendants  would  not  stultify  themselves  by 
either  offering  evidence  or  appearing  by  coun 
sel."  With  this,  the  District- Attorney  moved 
that  the  defendants  be  ordered  into  custody. 
The  Court  replied,  —  "  The  District- Attorney 
is  entitled  to  the  order.  Let  the  accused  be 
called." 

The  Clerk  then  read  the  names  of  the  in 
dicted,  and  those  present  were  directed  to 
put  themselves  under  the  control  of  the  mar 
shal,  who  cleared  seats  for  them.  While  this 
was  going  on,  Mr.  Ralph  Plumb,  one  of  the 
indicted,  whose  case  had  previously  been  put 
over  to  the  November  term,  went  to  Judge 
Spalding,  and  asked  if  his  recognizance  would 
not  be  taken  up,  so  that  he  could  cast  in  his  lot 


with  his  now  imprisoned  brethren.  The  Judge 
replied  affirmatively,  and  moved  the  Court  m 
Mr.  Plumb's  behalf  to  cancel  his  recognizance, 
and  allow  him  to  join  those  who  had  been  put 
in  custody.  The  motion  was  granted.  This 
occurrence  called  the  attention  of  counsel  to 
the  recognizances  of  those  who  were  now  in 
the  Marshal's  keeping,  and  Jud^e  Spalding 
arose  and  said,  "  Your  Honor  will,  of  course, 
direct  the  Clerk  to  cancel  the  recognizances  of 
all  the  gentlemen  who  have  been  put  into  cus 
tody.  It  would  be  improper  that  their  recog 
nizances  should  stand  while  they  are  in  prison." 
"  Certainly,"  replied  Judge  Willson,  "  it  will 
be  done  of  course." 

The  Court  and  some  of  its  officers  seemed  to 
realize,  at  once,  that  injustice  had  been  done 
to  the  parties  in  custody,  and  that  some  means 
for  escape  from  the  odium  which  would  be  in 
curred  by  the  order  for  imprisonment,  should 
be  found.  Accordingly,  the  Marshal  soon  came 
to  the  party  in  duress,  and  proposed  that  the 
whole  party  should  go  home,  giving  its  promise 
to  return  on  the  next  Monday  morning.  (The 
proposition  was  accompanied,  however,  with 
the  distinct  statement,  repeated  at  least  once, 
that  "  Bushnell  was  not  to  be  included  in  the 
category.")  The  Court,  also,  in  reply  to  a 
proposition  from  the  District-Attorney,  that 
ample  security  should  be  required  of  the  per 
sons  in  custody,  before  they  should  be  permitted 
to  go  at  large,  replied  that  if  they  chose,  they 
should  go  out  on  the  same  terms  on  which  they 
had  had  liberty  since  their  arrest,  viz.,  by  giv 
ing  personal  recognizance.  This  ruling  plainly 
implied  that  the  procedure  which  had  resulted 
in  the  commitment  had  originated  with  the 
District- Attorney  and  Court  (otherwise  it  would 
have  been  rebuked  by  a  change  of  the  terms  of 
bail),  or  in  short,  that  it  was  warranted  by  no 
wron^-doing  coming  on  the  part  of  the  persons 
committed,  and  that  it  was  regarded  by  the 
Court  itself  as  being  legally  unjust. 

Confident  that  the  commitment  had  pro 
ceeded  from  personal  malice  and  a  determina 
tion  to  humble  them,  on  the  part  of  the  District- 
Attorney,  and  at  least  a  willingness  to  have 
them  driven  to  the  wall,  on  the  part  of  the 
Court,  and  feeling  that  they  would  enter  most 
emphatic  protest  against  the  insult  and  legal 
injustice  which  they  had  suffered,  by  remaining 
in  custody  of  the  Marshal  until  the  Court  should 
amend  the  wronjr  or  the  law  should  relieve 
them,  and  that  while  the  question  as  to  the  jury 
was  yet  open,  it  would  be  politic  to  let  the 
responsibility  of  the  commitment  rest  with  the 
Court,  the  defendants  for  the  time  refused  the 
offers  both  of  the  Court  and  Marshal.  They 
were  further  prompted  to  this  course  by  the 
consideration  that  it  would  permit  them  to 
share  Bushnell's  fortunes  as  long  as  possible. 
They  did,  however,  say  to  the  Marshal  that 
"  they  were  under  his  orders,  and  should  do,  to 
the  letter,  what  he  directed."  He  replied  by- 
sending  them  to  jail. 


182 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


It  was,  therefore,  because  the  Court,  without 
being  justified  by  wrong-doing  of  any  kind  on 
their  part,-  had  ordered  them  into  custody,  and 
thus  grossly  insulted  and  wronged  them,  and  be 
cause  they  were  umvilling  to  be  made  the  scape 
goats  of  the  judicial  outrage  (as  they  would 
have  been,  had  they,  by  making  concessions  or 
accepting  favors,  relieved  the  Court  of  the 
burden  of  the  indignity  which  it  had  forced 
upon  them)  that  the  committed  "  rescuers " 
came  to  jail  on  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  April 
15th. 

But  it  was  expected  by  the  imprisoned  com 
pany  that  when  Court  was  called  on  Monday 
morning  it  would,  by  recalling  its  order  respect 
ing  the  Jury,  if  not  otherwise,  open  the  way 
for  their  restoration  to  liberty  upon  the  same  foot 
ing  which  they  had  occupied  before  their  com 
mitment.  They  were  not  disappointed  in  their 
expectations  that  the  Court  would  recede  from 
its  (as  its  seemed  to  them)  exceedingly  unjust 
ruling  as  to  the  Jury.  But  they  were  disap 
pointed  in  finding  that  their  way  to  an  honora 
ble  release  was  hedged  by  an  entry  on  the 
Journal  of  the  Court,  which  averred  that  the 
defendants  were  taken  into  custody  because 
they  had  surrendered  themselves  in  discharge 
of  their  recognizances.  They  at  once  saw  that 
this  entry  either  grew  out  of  a  misapprehen 
sion  of  facts,  or  resulted  from  a  determination 
to  compel  them  to  remain  in  custody,  or  to  re 
gain  liberty  at  the  expense  of  a  plain  acknowl 
edgment  that  they  had  been  guilty  of  folly  and 
indiscretion  which  well  deserved  punishment. 
Hoping  that  the  first,  was  the  correct  view,  they 
made,  through  counsel,  a  statement  of  the  facts, 
and  asked  that  if  the  Journal  could  not  be  so 
corrected  as  to  correspond  with  the  truth,  it 
should  be  either  vacated  or  made  to  present,  in 
a  new  entry,  the  fact  that  they  differed  with  the 
Court  in  their  understanding  of  the  matter. 
The  Court  kept  the  request  under  advisement 
through  the  day,  and  then  announced  that  it 
had  determined  to  let  the  record  stand  as  it 
was.  This  announcement  compelled  the  im 
prisoned  to  believe  that  their  humiliation  was 
determined  by  the  Court.  Under  such  circum 
stances  self-respect  forbade  their  entering  into 
new  bonds. 

Knowing  that  the  matter  they  had  in  hand 
was  an  important  one,  and  that  either  remaining 
in  custody  or  giving  new  recognizances  involv 
ed  great  issues  to  themselves  and  others,  the 
imprisoned  took  time  to  consider  both  their  po 
sition  and  their  duty.  While  they  were  pur 
suing  their  inquiries,  they  entertained  the  hope 
that  the  Supreme  Court  would  release  them 
from  the  duress  by  granting  them  habeas  cor 
pus.  Their  hope  in  this  direction  was  presently 
blighted  by  the  refusal  of  the  Court  to  grant  the 
writ,  and  then  they  found  the  way  to  honorable 
escape  from  custody  more  effectually  closed 
than  it  had  ever  before  been.  If  they  had  en 
tered  into  recognizances  or  given  bail  upon  the 
beels  of  their  defeat  at  Columbus,  they  would 


have  encouraged  the  Prosecution  in  the  belief 
that  they  were  effectually  humbled,  and  that 
they  had  forsaken  their  cause  ae  being  lost. 
That  they  were  justified  in  believing  that  their 
entering  into  recognizances  or  giving  bail  at  this 
time  would  have  been  regarded  in  this  light,  is 
proved  by  the  despatch  which  Marshal  Johnson 
sent  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  27th,  the  substance  of 
which  was  stated  in  the  Washington  Constitution 
as  follows :  — 

"  The  President  last  evening  received  a  tele 
graphic  despatch,  dated  at  Cleveland,  from  the 
Marshal  of  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  stat 
ing  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State  had 
unanimously  refused  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
in  the  case  of  the  persons  in  his  custody,  under 
the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  that  three  of  the  most 
respectable  of  them  had  given  bail  for  their  ap 
pearance  to  stand  their  trial  before  the  District 
Court  of  the  United  States.  Every  thing  was 
quiet." 

The  obvious  implication  of  this  despatch  was 
twofold ;  first,  that  Northern  repugnance  to  the 
fugitive  slave  act  had  received  a  decided  blow 
from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
secondly,  that  the  hearts  of  those  who  had  en 
tertained  this  repugnance  and  had  actively  ex 
pressed  it,  were  fainting  under  the  blow.  The 
imprisoned  felt  that  they  could  not,  in  honor  or 
in  duty,  justify  the  second  intimation  of  this 
singular  despatch,  and  that  if  they  were  ever  to 
yield  it  must  be  when  the  cause  they  loved  was 
not  going  backward,  and  when  their  yielding 
would  not  accelerate  its  decline.  So  they  waited 
for  a  better  day,  all  the  time  longing  to  be  at 
home  and  about  the  business  which  sorely 
needed  their  presence,  and  suffering  under  the 
irksome  constraint  of  prison  life,  they  eagerly 
sought  the  place  for  honorable  escape.  They 
thought  they  would  perhaps  find  that  place  at 
the  close  of  the  Langston  trial.  They  assured 
themselves  that  the  developments  of 'that  trial 
would  prove  to  the  Court  that  if  the  testimony 
for  the  Government  was  justly  weighed  and  the 
evidence  for  the  defence  was  measured  as  it 
should  be,  no  one  of  the  rescuers  could  fairly 
be  convicted,  and  that  the  prosecution  would 
be  dropped.  But  the  end  only  showed  a  judi 
cial  bias  stronger  than  before,  and  a  partisan 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  Jury,  which  could  not 
rest  short  of  a  verdict  of  guilty. 

Thus  was  the  prospect  for  making  honorable 
escape,  which  the  imprisoned  sought,  made 
darker  than  it  had  yet  been. 

But  that  they  might  leave  no  stone  unturned, 
the  imprisoned  presented,  on  Wednesday  last, 
as  from  John  Watson,  one  of  their  number,  an 
affidavit  setting  forth  the  facts  respecting  their 
imprisonment,  and  followed  it  with  an  appeal 
from  Mr.  Riddle,  in  which,  reciting  again  their 
story  and  asserting  their  rights,  they  demanded 
either  speedy  trial,  discharge  from  process,  or 
such  a  correction  of,  or  entry  upon  the  journal 
as  would  permit  them  to  occupy,  without  dis- 


06ERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


183 


credit  to  themselves,  the  position  they  formerly 
held  before  the  Court.  But  the  appeal  was  in 
vain.  A  bland  intimation  that  there  was  no 
barrier  to  the  liberty  of  the  imprisoned  but 
"punctilio"  and  a  positive  refusal  to  do  what 
was  asked,  was  the  only  reply  which  the  Court 
saw  fit  to  give.  And  so  the  incarcerated  com 
pany  finds  itself  effectually  shut  out  from  all 
relief  except  such  as  it  cannot  but  scorn. 

To  sum  up  the  points  involved  in  the  above 
history,  the  imprisoned  are  here  because  an 
order  of  the  Court  put  them  here ;  they  stay 
here  because  a  judicial  wrong  under  which 
they  suffer  is  unredressed,  and  because  a  jour 
nal  entry  of  the  Court  will  not  allow  them  to 
go  out  without  personal  disgrace  —  the  disgrace 
they  would  suffer  in  virtually  acknowledging 
that  they  had  been  guilty  of  a  most  foolish 
action,  and  that  they  were  ready  to  sneak  away 
from  the  dilemma  in  which  that  action  had 
placed  them.  The  self-respect  of  the  impris 
oned,  the  sense  of  honor  which  Heaven  planted 
in  their  souls,  and  which  revered  parents  care 
fully  nursed,  will  not  permit  them  to  involve 
themselves  in  such  disgrace.  It  could  never  be 
with  them  a  matter  of  mere  "punctilio"  to 
avoid  the  dishonor  to  which  their  only  chance 
of  escape  exposes  them,  and  now  the  circum 
stances  in  which  they  are  placed  and  the  rela 
tion  which  they  sustain  to  a  good  cause,  beset 
and  imperilled  by  oppressive  power,  make 
what  might,  in  another  case,  be  an  inconsider 
able  affair,  rise  into  a  duty  of  the  greatest 
magnitude.  The  imprisoned  cannot  allow  it  to 
be  said  that  when  Freedom  was  assailed  on  her 
last  field,  they  ingloriously  dropped  their 
banner  to  save  themselves  inconvenience  and 
Buffering.  They  are  not  willing  to  have  even 
an  appearance  of  submission  to  tyrannical 
power  on  their  part,  become  a  pledge  that 
the  diabolical  Fugitive  Slave  Act  is  hereafter 
to  work  its  own  on  the  Western  Re 
serve. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  both  the  histori 
cal  sketch,  and  the  summary  above  presented, 
we  (for  AVO  will  here  drop  the  third  person) 
have  laid  special  stress  on  the  necessity  for 
maintaining  a  protest  against  what  we  regard 
as  judicial  tyranny,  and  the  point  of  honor 
which  prevents  our  liberating  ourselves  by 
giving  bail.  Nothing  has  been  said  with  re 
spect  to  the  policy  of  our  course.  This,  how 
ever,  is  a  matter  which  has  been  constantly 
kept  in  view.  We  have  thought,  and  still 
think,  that  in  various  ways,  a  manly  and 
straightforward  course  on  our  part,  would 
promote  our  cause.  Precisely  how  the  main 
taining  of  our  determined  protests  against  what 
we  have  regarded  as  injustice  and  falsehood, 
would  advance  our  interests  in  the  defence  of 
our  cases,  it  would  not  be  politic  for  us  to  say. 
In  due  time  we  shall  give  to  the  public  a  full 
disclosure  of  the  motives  which  have  acted  on 
us  in  this  direction,  and  we  believe  that  such  a 
disclosure  will  fully  satisfy  all  who  have  doubted 


the  propriety  of  our  course,  that  it  has  been 
wisely  taken. 

We  must  not  close  without  saying,  that  in  all 
that  we  have  done,  we  have  cautiously  inquir 
ed  what  is  right,  and  what  expedient?  Nor 
have  we  trusted  to  our  judgments  only.  We 
have  invited  the  counsel  of  as  wise  and  judi 
cious  men  as  we  could  reach,  and  our  conclu 
sions  have  been  those  to  which  we  have  been 
conducted  by  what  has  seemed  to  us  the  de 
cidedly  preponderating  opinion  of  the  seven  or 
eight  eminent  lawyers  with  whom  we  have  been 
in  constant  consultation. 

And,  withal,  we  have  constantly  looked  for 
direction  to  that  Superior  Intelligence,  which 
gives  "  wisdom  to  all  who  seek  it  and  upbraid- 
eth  not."  At  every  step,  what  we  have  regard 
ed  as  manifest,  Providence  has  pointed  the  way. 
We  still  look  to  our  Divine  Guide  for  direction. 
We  know  that  if  earthly  tribunals  deny  the  re 
lief  we  ask,  the  higher  Court  to  which  we  look 
will,  in  due  time,  send  it.  We  assure  ourselves 
that  the  Great  Arbiter  will  not  be  pleased  with 
conduct  on  our  part,  which  will  degrade  our 
selves,  or  betray  a  good  cause ;  and  we  are 
equally  confident  that  if  we  stand  to  our  integ 
rity,  he  will  appoint  an  issue  to  our  troubles, 
which  will  honor  Him  and  fully  satisfy  us.  We 
cheerfully  wait  the  opening  of  the  "  door  which 
no  man  can  shut ! " 

H.  E.  PECK,  DAVID  L.  WATSON, 

RALPH  PLUMB,  WILSON  B.  EVANS, 

CHAS.  H.  LANGSTON,     HENRY  EVANS, 
A.  W.  LYMAN,  RICHARD  WINSOR, 

J.  H.  SCOTT,  W.  E.  LINCOLN, 

JAMES  BARTLETT,         J.  M.  FITCH-, 
JOUN  WATSON. 


STATEMENT    OF    COUNSEL. 

Messrs.  Peck  and  Others,  Prisoners,  etc., 

GENTLEMEN  :  —  The  following  we  believe 
to  be  an  accurate  statement  of  what  transpired 
in  the  U.  S.  District  Court  on  the  loth  ult.,  in 
connection  with  the  order  made  by  the  Court, 
that  you  be  taken  into  custody  by  the  mar 
shal  :  — 

Upon  the  announcement  of  the  verdict  of 
the  Jury  in  the  case  against  Bushnell,  the  case 
of  Langston  was  called  by  the  Court,  and  in 
quiry  was  made  as  to  whether  the  parties  were 
ready.  The  District- Attorney  stated  that  the 
Government  was  ready.  Defendant's  counsel 
replied  that  they  were  not  ready  in  that  case, 
but  were  in  the  case  against  Peck.  The  Dis 
trict-Attorney  insisted  upon  taking  up  the  cases 
in  the  order  in  which  they  stood  on  the  Docket. 
The  Court  said  the  Government  had  the  right 
so  to  insist ;  and  again  asked  if  the  defence  was 
ready  in  the  case  of  Langston.  His  counsel 
replied  that  they  probably  should  be  by  the 
time  a  Jury  should  be  empanelled.  The  Dis 
trict-Attorney  and  the  Court  both  said  that  the 
Jury  then  in  the  box  (being  the  one  that  had 
just  returned  the  verdict  against  Bushnell),  were 


184 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


the  regular  Jury  for  the  trial  of  all  the  cases. 
The  counsel  for  the  defendants  strongly  protest 
ed  against  being  compelled  to  go  to  trial  in  the 
remaining  cases  before  a  Jury  that  must  have 
already  made  up  its  mind  against  them  on  all 
the  principal  questions,  except  one,  involved  in 
the  cases.  The  Court  observed  that  the  mere 
fact  that  the  Jury  had  tried  Bushnell,  would 
constitute  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not 
try  the  other  defendants,  —  intimating,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  would  be  competent  for  the 
defendants  to  challenge  them  for  cause,  if  they 
had  made  up  their  mind  as  to  the  guilt  of  those 
about  to  be  tried.  The  defendant's  counsel 
then  notified  the  Court  that  if  it  was  determined 
to  try  the  remaining  defendants  by  that  Jury, 
no  one  of  them  would  make  any  defence  what 
ever,  but  that  the  Court  might  proceed  with 
them  as  it  saw  fit.  The  District- Attorney  there 
upon  instantly  arose,  and  with  a  great  deal  of 
petulance  in  his  manner,  moved  the  Court  that 
all  the  remaining  defendants,  with  the  exception 
of  Loveland,  De  Wolfe,  and  some  others,  whom 
he  had  permitted  to  go  home  for  the  time  being, 
be  ordered  into  custody.  To  this  Judge  Spald- 
ing,  still  occupying  his  seat,  said,  sharply,  "  I 
second  the  motion."  The  Court  observed  that 
the  District- Attorney  had  the  right  to  require 
the  order  to  be  made,  and  directed  the  clerk  to 
call  the  names  of  the  defendants,  with  the  ex 
ception  named  in  the  motion ;  which  was  ac 
cordingly  done,  and  those  of  them  then  in  the 
court  room  were  taken  into  custody  by  the 
marshal.  As  this  was  being  done,  Judge  Spald- 
ing  asked  that  their  recognizances  might  be  can- 
ceiled  ;  to  which  the  Court  replied, "  Of  course," 
— and  directed  the  proper  entry  to  be  made  for 
that  purpose  by  the  clerk.  Judge  Spalding 
also  moved  the  Court  that  the  continuance  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Plumb,  which  had  before  then  been 
entered,  might  be  cancelled,  and  he  be  per 
mitted  to  surrender  himself  in  discharge  of  his 
recognizance,  which  was  accordingly  done. 

We  cannot  be  mistaken  in  the  fact  that  you 
•were  ordered  into  custody,  as  above  stated,  and 
that  you  did  not  surrender  yourselves,  as  alleged 
in  the  Journal  entry. 

11.  P.  SPALDING, 
A.  G.  RIDDLE, 
S.  O.  GRISWOLD, 
F.  T.  BACKUS, 
as  Counsel  for  Defendants. 
Cleveland,  May  14,  1859. 

Great  efforts  had  been  made  to  rid  the 

docket  of  the  indicted  from  Wellington,  as 
may  already  have  been  inferred.  The  prose 
cution  was  fast  becoming  so  emphatically  a 
"  pursuit  of"  —  no  matter  what  —  "  under  diffi 
culties,"  that  "  retrenchment "  somewhere  grew 
to  be  a  necessity  too  urgent  for  neglect,  and 
the  Wellington  defendants  were  considered  on 
several  accounts  the  more  proper  to  be  first 


dropped.  Finding  it  not  so  ea.-r  to  "drop" 
them  by  simply  opening  the  hand,  there  was 
no  choice  but  to  retreat,  bolt,  or  plead.  The 
Court  preferred  pleading.  A  number  of  indi 
viduals  were  employed  to  approach  them  from 
various  quarters,  and  with  various  induce 
ments.  The  total  success  of  these  combined 
forces  has  already  appeared.  Our  venera 
ble  FATHER  GILLETT  still  represented  Wel 
lington  in  prison.  Nothing  could  move  him. 
An  endless  series  of  inducements  were  pre 
sented,  pressed,  argued,  urged  —  but  to  no 
purpose.  They  had,  indeed,  met  a  rock  in  the 
strait,  and  there  was  no  getting  farther.  He 
was  finally  besought  to  leaAre  the  Jail  at  least, 
and  offered  release  upon  his  personal  recogni 
zance,  just  after  three  of  his  neighbors  had 
been  inflexibly  held  to  bail  with  sureties. 
The  quiet  answer  was :  "  I  was  ordered  to  jail 
when  you  had  my  recognizance  inviolately  ob 
served  :  1  never  give  you  another .'  " 

Down  on  the  other  knee  then. 

"  Will  you  give  us  your  icord  to  return  when 
we  send  for  you  ?  " 

"Never,  gentlemen.  You  have  treated  me 
like  cowards,  insulting  my  honor  when  it  was 
pledged.  I  shall  not  allow  you  an  opportunity 
to  repeat  the  outrage." 

What  was  to  be  done  ?  The  testimony 
|  against  the  old  gentleman  would  be  next  to 
nothing;  the  indictment  was  only  to  harass; 
the  game  with  him  was  out,  and  they  found 
themselves  in  decidedly  the  worst  of  it ;  —  the 
old  man  MUST  be  shaken  off  at  any  cost. 

All  along  on  their  faces  ! 

"  Will  you  go  home  if  you  are  turned  out  of 
jail?" 

"  If  the  choice  were  to  sleep  in  the  streets  or 
go  home,  I  think  I  should  go  home  !  "  said  the 
good-humored  old  gentleman,  shaking  his  sides 
with  quiet  merriment. 

"  And  come  back  when  your  counsel  advise 
it?" 

"  I  shall  be  likely  to  follojv  the  advice  of  my 
counsel  so  long  as  I  employ  them." 

"Well,  then,  go!" 

So  FATHER  GILLETT  went. 

Fourteen  Oberlin  men  now  remained  in 
prison,  twelve  of  them  yet  to  be  tried.  The 
Court  gave  out  —  by  the  Court  is  meant,  in 
this  connection,  not  only  the  Judge,  but  the 
District- Attorney,  the  Marshal,  the  Clerk,  and 
all  their  attachees  as  well,  since  they  acted  in 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


185 


perfect  unison  and  .with  a  common  understand-  | 
ing  in  these  cases  —  in  every  direction,  and 
almost  under  the  ears  of  the  prisoners,  that  if 
they  would  only  knuckle  handsomely  and 
"acknowledge  the  corn,"  they  would  get  off 
almost  as  easily  as  the  Wellington  men  ;  but  if 
they  did  n't j  they  should  every  one  IDG  pinned  to 
the  wall;  for  it  "tea*  high  time  that  OBEIILIX, 
the  strong-hold  and  hotbed  of  Abolitionism  and 
REPUBLICANISM  was  SUBDUED."  If  this  had 
not  come  time  after  time  direct  from  the  au 
thorities  themselves,  it  would  indeed  be  unpar 
donable  to  publish  it. 

THE  SECOND  APPLICATION  FOR  HABEAS 
COIIPUS  was  made  in  behalf  of  the  two  who 
had  been  sentenced,  to  Judge  SCOTT,  of  the 
Supreme  Bench,  on  the  1 7th  of  May.  As  in 
duty  bound,  he  immediately  issued  the  writ, 
returnable  before  the  Full  Bench,  and  then 
telegraphed  to  his  brethren  who  were  just  dis 
persed  to  their  several  circuits,  requesting 
them  to  sit  with  him  in  Special  Session.  As 
the  recent  assaults  made  upon  this  great  bul 
wark  of  Freedom  have  awakened  much  inqui 
ry  in  regard  to  it,  we  are  sure  of  gratifying  the 
reader  by  presenting  him  the  form  of  the  writ. 

The  State  of  Ohio:  — 

To  David  L.  Wightman,  Sheriff  of  Cuyahoga 
County :  — 

We  command  you  that  the  body  of  Charles 
Langston,  —  in  your  custody  detained,  as  it  is 
said,  together  with  the  day  and  cause  of  his 
caption  and  detention ;  by  whatsoever  name  the 
said  Charles  Langston  may  be  known  or  called, 
—  you  safely  have  before  the  Judges  of  our 
Supreme  Court,  at  their  court  room  in  the  City 
of  Columbus,  on  Wednesday,  the  25th  day  of 
May,  instant,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  to 
do  and  receive  all  and  singular  those  things 
which  the  said  Judges  shall  then  and  there  con 
sider  of  him,  in  this  behalf;  and  have  you  then 
there  this  writ. 

Witness  James   H.   Smith,   Clerk   of 

,<z    ,  >.       our   said    Supreme    Court,   at  the 
^ocai.;       ^r  of  ColumbuSj  this  17th  day  of 

May,  A.  D.  1859. 
JAS.  H.  SMITH,  Clerk  S.  C. 

By  H.  S.  Miller,  Dep. 

Many  threats  had  been  made  that  the  Mar 
shal  would  adhere  to  the  plain  path  of  his  duty 
as  marked  out  in  the  Booth  decision,  and  re 
peated  by  special  autograph  instructions  from 
Attorney-General  Black,  and  see  that  under 
no  circumstances  was  the  order  of  the  Supreme 
Court  obeyed  in  the  production  of  the  bodies 
of  the  relators  before  its  bar.  The  Marshal's 

24 


own  salaried  editor  thundered  it  morning 
after  morning,  and  the  penitent  Douglas  print 
echoed  it  every  evening;  till  all  the  country 
round  about,  as  well  as  every  dweller  in  the 
town,  was  aware  that  MARSHAL  MATTHEW 
JOHNSON  WOULD  DO  HIS  DUTY  !  So  the  anx 
ious  grew  calm;  half-cleaned  weapons  were 
thrown  aside,  and  nobody  was  surprised  to 
learn  that  the  Marshal  had  "  compromised  "  by 
threatening  to  serve  a  "  WRITTEN  NOTICE  "  on 
the  Sheriff  not  to  move  the  men  out  of  jail ; 
and  added  that,  if  he  did,  —  let  the  reader  be 
calm  and  ready  for  the  worst,  —  he,  Marshal 
Matthew  Johnson,  should  ptcitively  —  let  the 
reader  take  breath  and  compose  himself  — 
should  positively  —  so  he  said  —  do  what? — 
why,  he  should  POSITIVELY  take  the  same  train 
to  Columbus  ! 

Did  he  ? 

Of  course  not. 

He  went  the  night  "before  I 

And  so  the  Union  was  once  more  saved. 

Here  is  the  notice :  — 

U.  S.  MARSHAL'S  OFFICE,  Northern  Dist.  of) 
Ohio,  Cleveland,  May  24,  1859,      J 
To  DAVID  L.  WIGHTMAN,  Esq.,  Sheriff  of  Cuyahoga 

Co.:  — 

SIR,  — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
19th  instant,  in  which  you  state  you  have  writs 
of  habeas  corpus  commanding  you  to  have 
Simeon  Bushnell  and  Charles  Langston  before 
the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  at 
their  court  room  in  Columbus,  on  Wednesday, 
the  25th  day  of  May,  1859,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M., 
with  the  cause  of  their  imprisonment,  and  you 
also  state  that  you  will  obey  said  writs  of  habeas 
corpus. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
having  decided  that  the  State  Courts  have  no 
power  to  discharge  persons  imprisoned  under 
process  of  the  United  States  Courts,  for  viola 
tion  of  the  laws  of  Congress,  and  it  being  clearly 
your  duty  to  return  in  answer  to  the  writs,  the 
cause  of  .the  detention  of  the  prisoners,  with 
out  producing  their  persons,  I  hereby  protest 
against  your  removing  or  permitting  to  be  re 
moved  from  the  Jail  of  Cuyahoga  Co.,  the  said 
Simeon  Bushnell  and  Charles  Langston  until 
the  expiration  of  the  sentence  for  which  they 
are  respectively  imprisoned. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

M.  JOHNSON, 

U.  S.  Marshal  of  the  Northern  Dist.  of  Ohio. 

Supreme  Court  of  Ohio, 
Columbus,  May  25th,  1859,  10  A.  M. 
Simeon  Bushnell,  andl 
Charles  Langston,       I  Habeas  Corpus> 

David  L.  Wightman,  J 


186 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Present :  —  Full  Bench. 

ARGUMENT   FOR   THE  RELATORS. 

MR.  A.  G.  RIDDLE:  — 
May  it  please  the  Court :  — 

This  is  a  proceeding  before  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  at  Chambers,  yet  I  recognize 
the  presence  of  the  Court. 

The  relators  by  affidavit  informed  the  Court 
that  at  the  date  of  their  application  they  were 
imprisoned  in  the  jail  of  Cuyaho^a  County,  by 
the  Sheriff  of  said  County,  without  legal  au 
thority  ;  and  thereupon  one  of  your  Honors 
issued  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  commanding 
the  sheriff  to  produce  the  bodies  of  the  appli 
cants  before  you  to-day,  and  show  why  he  de 
tained  them.  The  sheriff  returns  these  writs 
with  the  persons  of  the  applicants,  and  appends 
to  his  return  as  a  part  of  it,  and  in  addition  to 
the  statement  that  he  held  them  under  the  mit 
timus  of  the  U.  S.  District  and  Circuit  Court, 
a  certified  copy  of  the  Journal  entry  and  an 
exemplification  of  the  records,  by  which  it  ap 
pears  that  they  were  imprisoned  by  that  sheriff, 
pursuant  to  an  alleged  final  judgment,  —  award 
ing  that  as  punishment  of  the  U.  S.  District 
Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio. 

In  the  face  of  that  record  and  directly  meet 
ing  that  exemplification  as  it  is  witnessed  by 
that  seal,  we  still  stand  here,  with  the  permis 
sion  of  the  Court,  to  say  that  that  imprison 
ment  is  illegal ;  that  that  judgment  is  a  nulli 
ty  ;  that  there  is  no  such  crime  as  the  act  al 
leged  in  that  record ;  that  the  law  by  virtue  of 
which  and  under  which  it  is  said  that  these  pro 
ceedings  were  had,  is  no  law.  We  say  that 
that  alleged  law  is  not  law :  — 

First ;  because  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  under  the  Constitution  thereof  had  no 
power  to  legislate  upon  that  subject-matter. 

Second ;  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  under  that  Constitution  had  no  power 
to  pass  such  a  law  —  or  such  an  act,  as  the  one 
upon  which  these  proceedings  wrere  based. 

Third ;  that  under  that  law  this  record 
charges  no  crime. 

Fourth ;  that  that  claimed  law  is  in  contra 
vention  of  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  which  is  of  antecedent  and  paramount 
authority. 

It  was  not  the  fortune  of  either  the  Attorney- 
General  with  whom  it  is  my  good  fortune  to  be 
associated  in  this  case,  or  of  myself,  to  hear  the 
arguments  recently  submitted  to  your  Honors, 
upon  a  prior  application  by  these  relators  for 
relief,  while  the  proceedings  in  the  U.  S.  Court 
were  still  pending.  For  myself,  I  wish  merely 
to  add,  that  if  it  shall  be  found  that  I  do  not 
follow  the  same  course  of  argument,  it  is  not 
because  I  seek  in  the  slightest  degree  to  waive 
the  positions  then  taken ;  and  if  I  should 
chance  to  offer  some  of  the  same  arguments,  ] 
hope  not  to  be  altogether  amenable  to  the 
charge  of  tautology.  I  am  perfectly  aware, 


your  Honors,  that  in  approaching  this  grave 

Siestion  of  Constitutional  authority,  that  it  is 
aimed,  that  we  are  completely  hedged  in,  or 
walled  out,  from  the  consideration  of  it  by  the 
adjudications  of  the   Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

But,  your  Honors,  with  all  due  respect  to 
that  high  tribunal,  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  con 
tended  that  a  decision  01  the  Supreme  Court  of 
he  United  States  can  impart  any  Constitution 
al  vitality  to  an  act  of  Congress  which  that  act 
'ntrinsically,  and  in  the  first  instance,  does  not 
possess.  In  other  words,  such  a  decision  can 
not  make  an  unconstitutional  act  a  constitution 
al  law.  The  utmost  that  can  be  claimed  is 
hat  it  precludes  parties  from  farther  inquiry  — 
acts  as  a  sort  of  judicial  estoppel,  concluding 
the  question.  It  will  not  be  my  purpose  in  the 
few  remarks  in  the  way  of  the  opening  argument 
which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  submit  to  your 
Honors,  to  enter  to  any  considerable  extent  in 
to  any  criticism  or  analysis  of  these  decisions. 
That  duty  will  fall  more  properly  within  the 
labors  of  my  associate.  I  shall  barely  refer  to 
them,  and  possibly  make  a  passing  remark  in 
reference  to  one  or  two  of  them.  I  believe  the 
leading  one  of  them  referred  to  and  relied  on  as 
the  parent  source  of  all  authority,  and  which  is 
essentially  such,  is  the  case  of  Prigg  v.  Pennsyl 
vania,  16  Peters,  611.  There  are  also  as  re 
peaters,  reechoers,  the  cases  of  Jones  v.  Van 
Zandt,  5  Howard,  215;  Moore  v.  Sill,  14  How 
ard,  13,  and  the  famous  Simms  case,  in  7  Gush 
ing,  285,  as  also  others. 

I  do  not  know,  but  it  will  be  sought  to  add  to 
these,  what  is  known  as  the  Boothe  case,  re 
cently  said  to  have  been  decided  by  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  on  a  writ  of 
error  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin.  But 
I  do  not  know  as  that  has  been  given  to  the 
courts  in  such  a  form  that  it  can  be  treated  by 
the  Courts  as  authority.  I  think  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio  will  hardly  find  itself  called 
upon  to  resort  to  the  columns  of  newspapers, 
however  veracious  they  may  be,  for  authority. 
Res  adjudicata  can  hardly  be  claimed  to  reside 
there. 

And  first  of  the  Prigg  case.  And  while  I 
would  approach  this  with  due  respect,  I  would 
yield  it  no  more  deference  than  I  would  any  of 
the  decisions  of  this  high  tribunal  in  whose  pres 
ence  I  stand. 

This  is  the  case  cited  as  settling  the  question 
of  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the 
reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves ;  but  it  will  be 
found  when  this  case  is  fairly  analyzed,  it  cov 
ers  no  such  ground. 

It  is  difficult  for  the  legal  mind  to  see  hovz 
that  question  could  have  been  properly  before 
that  Court,  so  that  its  passing  upon  it  is  to  be 
taken  as  an  adjudication,  in  the  judicial  sense  of 
that  expression.  A  party  —  Prigg, — was  pros 
ecuted  under  the  State  law  of  Pennsylvania 
for  kidnapping,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to 
the  penitentiary.  The  case  was  taken  to  the 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


1ST 


Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.,  and  the  main 
question  upon  which  that  Court  was  called  to 
pass,  was  solely  and  exclusively  the  constitu 
tionality  of  the  act  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.  decided  that 
that  act  was  unconstitutional,  and  unconstitu 
tional  because  they  settled  a  certain  other  ques 
tion,  namely,  that  the  Constitution  guarantees 
to  the  master  the  right  of  recaption,  and  by  vir 
tue  of  this  bare  guarantee  the  master,  or  owner 
of  the  slave  who  escapes  in  another  State,  may 
pursue  and  make  manual  recaption  of  him ;  and 
return  him  to  the  State  from  which  he  escaped ; 
and  because  this  is  so  and  not  otherwise,  the 
law  of  Pennsylvania,  which  contravenes  this 
constitutional  right  of  recaption  is  necessarily 
unconstitutional.  That  disposes  of  the  case. 
And  therefore,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  the  power  of  Congress  to 
legislate  in  aid  of  the  master  was  at  all  before 
that  tribunal.  It  was  not  before  them,  and  all 
they  say  of  it  and  other  points,  is  the  purest 
obiter  dicta. 

And,  if  not  irreverent,  it  seems  to  me  that 
that  case  is  amenable  to  just  criticisms  of  quite 
another  sort.  That  court  commences  —  with 
all  veneration  be  it  said  —  by  establishing  new 
rules  of  interpreting  the  Constitution,  and  it 
winds  up  that  singular  process  by  saying  that 
no  uniform  rule  will  apply  to  the  whole  instru 
ment,  but  that  each  provision  must  dictate  its 
special  rule  of  construction ! 

It  is  alarming,  indeed,  when  we  find  that 
court  in  such  a  case  recasting  old  definitions, 
or  reconstructing  old — or  manufacturing  new 
rules !  It  would  certainly  challenge  fair  criti 
cism  when  we  should  find  that  no  uniform  rule 
could  be  applied  for  the  construction  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  U.  S.  !  It  would  also  seem 
that  that  Court,  or  rather  its  judges,  were  obliged 
to  ward  singly  and  alone  the  various  and  de 
vious  processes  of  argumentation  by  which  a 
majority  scatteringly  arrived  at  the  conclusions 
to  which  they  finally  gathered  in.  It  is  not 
necessary  now  to  inquire,  whether  any  two  of 
them  came  to  the  same  result  by  the  same  pro 
cess ; —  but  it  is  shown  that  there  was  no  place 
upon  the  Wai  earth  to  be  found  where  those 
venerable  pilgrims  could  all  finally  reunite, 
except  the  point  from  which  they  started.  I 
remark,  then,  in  reference  to  this  celebrated 
case,  that  it  does  not  involve  the  question  to 
which  I  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  Court, 
to  wit ;  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  in 
aid  of  the  reclamation  of  fugitives  from  service 
or  labor.  And  I  wish  to  say  that  even  if  it 
shall  be  found  in  the  riper  and  better  conclu 
sions  of  this  Court  to  cover  that  ground,  that  by 
a  single  decision  of  these  questions  we  are  not 
bound.  For  I  say,  in  the  second  place,  that, 
passing  as  it  does  upon  these  great  questions, 
under  which  lie  great,  original  principles,  the 
utmost  which  ought  to  be  claimed  for  it,  is  that 
that  decision  furnishes  a  rule  for  that  case  be 
fore  that  Court ;  but  not  that  it  furnishes  the 


law  of  the  land ;  and  I  submit  that  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  can  give  no 
sanction,  that  shall  make  its  adjudications  the 
law  of  the  land. 

May  I  be  permitted,  in  the  third  place,  to 
say,  that  in  my  humble  judgment  there  is  noth 
ing  in  that  decision  by  which  this  Court,  repre 
senting  the  judicial  sovereignty  of  this  State 
can  be  estopped?  I  need  not  detain  your 
Honors  with  any  pedantic  schedule  of  the  ele 
ments  of  sovereignty  which  necessarily  enter 
into  the  combination  of  that  definition  as  ap 
plied  to  States  and  nations ;  but  among  them  I 
take  it  that  the  most  important  will  be  found  to 
be  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  ^citizen ; 
while  he  lives  in  strict  observance  of  the  golden 
rule  of  the  civil  law;  and  "lives  honestly,  hurts 
nobody,  and  gives  to  every  man  his  due  ; "  — 
and  that  it  is  going  far  to  say  that  the  right  on 
his  part  to  demand  protection,  and  the  duty  of 
the  State  to  render  it  is  not  so  imperative  as  to 
be  a  question  involving  the  sovereignty  of  the 
State.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  nature  of  such  things  as  States, 
that  when  the  question  of  State  sovereignty,  as 
between  itself  and  its  citizens,  is  broached,  this 
tribunal  is  the  exclusive  court  of  the  last  resort 
and  is  not  bound,  and  cannot  be  bound  by  the 
decisions  of  any  other  tribunal  whatsoever; 
unless  you  lay  the  whole  sovereignty  of  the 
State  at  the  foot  of  that  foreign  jurisdic 
tion. 

I  press  this  with  modesty.  Now  we  may  say 
of  States  as  we  say  of  individuals,  that  they 
have  certain  inalienable  rights,  with  which  they 
cannot  part.  That  they  have  duties  which  they 
owe  to  themselves,  to  their  subjects,  and  to  sur 
rounding  States  ;  that  to  the  discharge  of  these 
duties  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  they  should 
have,  to  a  certain  extent,  inalienable  rights.  J 
am  not  here  to  say  but  that  they  may  have 
parted  with  some  of  these  rights ;  if  the  people 
of  the  State  have  consented  ;  but  the  presump 
tion  must  be  that  they  are  all  retained  intact, 
until  it  is  proven  otherwise.  It  is  not  true, 
your  Honor,  that  the  States  have  grown  up 
under  the  iron  and  inflexible  rule  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  have  only  by  sufferance  been 
allowed  to  crop  out  in  one  direction,  or  grow 
out  in  another,  and  have  been  choked  and 
checked,  whenever  the  Constitution  did  not 
permit  them  to  shoot  upward.  The  States  are 
older  than  the  Constitution,  and  in  contempla 
tion  of  law  were  all  present  at  its  formation, 
without  reference  to  chronology ;  and  if  they 
have  parted  with  any  rights  it  has  been  .of  their 
own  choice,  by  their  own  freewill,  in  express 
grants ;  their  people  assenting  thereto ;  and 
against  them  no  presumptions  or  implications 
can  prevail.  But  approaching  more  directly  the 
Constitution  itself,  both  for  the  purpose  of  ascer 
taining  incidentally  what  the  State  of  Ohio  has 
to  concede  to  it  so  far  as  its  own  sovereignty  is 
concerned  ;  and  more  particularly  to  inquire 
whether  the  State  of  Ohio,  with  other  States, 


188 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


has  given  power  to  Congress  to  legislate  in  re 
gard  to  fugitives  from  service. 

Now,  may  I  be  permitted  to  say  here,  that  the 
Constitution  is  not  made  up  entirely  of  com 
promises,  as  the  modern  notion  seems  to  be  ? 
I  certainly  shall  not  attempt  to  seem  to  be 
learned,  and  undertake,  to  make  any  new 
schedule  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
All  this  is  old  and  hard-beaten  ground.  But 
with  reference  to  the  compromises  themselves 
we  find  that  there  was  a  compromise  between 
the  larger  and  the  smaller  States,  resulting  in 
equality  in  the  Senate  ;  and  also  a  compromise 
with  reference  to  slave  representation ;  and 
another*  with  reference  to  the  African  slave 
trade  ;  —  but  beyond  these,  will  some  learned 
man  tell  us  of  another  ?  As  to  the  much  talked 
of  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth 
Article,  that  it  is  not,  and  that  it  never  was  in 
tended  to  be  a  compromise  — judicial  falsifica 
tion  of  history  to  the  contrary  notwithstand 
ing  —  I  undertake  to  say.  That  the  clause  con 
tains  a  compact,  as  do  other  clauses  of  the  same 
section,  and  other  sections  of  the  same  article, 
I  not  only  admit,  but  insist ;  but  that  there  is 
any  grant  of  power  necessarily  implied  in  the 
nature  of  the  compact,  I  emphatically  deny. 
In  this  instrument  the  grants  of  power  to  the 
new  Government  must  necessarily  occupy  a 
prominent  place,  and  as  among  them  the  power 
to  make  treaties  is  also  conferred,  it  was  emi 
nently  proper  that  the  same  instrument  which 
conferred  it  should  also  provide  for  all  such 
treaties  or  compacts,  among  the  States,  as  a  far- 
seeing  sagacity  could  then  provide.  And  hence 
the  compacts,  and  the  fact  that  they  are  con 
tained  in  the  Constitution,  no  more  confers  on 
Congress  a  power  to  legislate  in  reference  to 
them,  to  enforce  them ;  or  otherwise,  than  as  if 
the  States  had  assembled  prior  to  the  formation 
of  that  instrument,  and  had  formally  agreed 
upon  and  entered  into  them,  and  had  made  them 
perpetual. 

In  addition  and  as  adjuncts  to  the  grants 
enumerated,  there  are  prohibitions,  standing 
out  in  just  as  bold  and  broad  relief  all  the  way 
along  these  grants,  limiting  their  exercise  on 
the  one  side ;  or  prohibiting  it  altogether  on  the 
other.  Guarantees,  no  less  important,  perhaps, 
than  the  others,  occupy  just  as  prominent  a  po 
sition  ;  which  provide  for  certain  rights,  and 
certain  privileges,  of  paramount  importance  — 
standing  pledges  that  they  shall  be  protected. 

Equal  to  all,  yet  occupying  less  space,  your 
Honors,  are  found  in  this  Constitution  reserva 
tions.  Thus  wherever  a  grant  of  power  is 
made,  you  find  it  surrounded  and  hedged  in 
with  prohibitions,  guarantees,  and  reservations, 
all  of  which  are  to  be  beaten  down  and  anni 
hilated,  before  an  usurpation  can  find  place  and 
toleration.  With  this  outline,  I  am  to  approach 
this  instrument  for  the  purpose  of  searching  for 
a  power,  not  only  to  legislate  upon  the  subject 
of  fugitive  slaves,  but  to  legislate  in  its  favor. 
For  it  cannot  be  contended  that  a  power  au 


thorizing  the  enactment  of  a  law,  which  pro 
vides  for,  and  authorizes,  and  furnishes  the 
means  of  recapturing  fugitive  slaves,  is  not  a 
law  directly  sustaining  slavery.  Before  enter 
ing  upon  this  investigation  I  beg  leave  to  call 
to  mind  two  or  three  so  well-established  propo 
sitions,  that  they  have  become  inflexible  rules. 
And  first,  Slavery  is  not  national,  but  local.  In 
the  face  of  solemn  platforms,  and  in  the  teeth 
of  national  politicians,  I  undertake  to  say,  that 
slavery  is  not  legally  or  constitutionally  a  na 
tional  institution;  and  hence,  certainly  the 
fostering  protection  of  it,  would  not  natu 
rally  fall  within  the  sphere  of  the  duties  of 
the  General  Government.  That  it  is  a  purely 
State  local  institution,  and  therefore  all  regula 
tion  of  it,  must  fall  outside  of  the  powers  dele 
gated  to  the  General  Government,  and  be  left 
entirely  to  individual  States  and  lesser  locali 
ties. 

I  remark,  second,  —  that  slavery  —  I  need 
not  refer  your  Honors  to  authorities  in  support 
of  this  proposition  —  in  the  United  States  ex 
ists  wholly  and  exclusively,  by  virtue  of  posi 
tive  law.  Farther,  that  all  presumptions  are, 
necessarily  and  essentially,  adverse  to  its  exist 
ence.  It  follows,  then,  that  if  slavery  is  to  ex 
ist  only  by  express  authority,  it  cannot  exist 
by  implied  authority ;  and  if  the  presumptions 
are  against  slavery,  the  presumptions  are  just 
as  conclusively  against  the  existence  of  a  law 
by  virtue  of  which  slavery  would  exist.  If  it 
cannot  exist  by  implication,  you  cannot  imply 
the  law,  or  the  power  to  enact  the  law  ;  and  as 
a  converse  of  all  this,  all  the  presumptions  are 
not  only  against  slavery,  but  in  favor  of  Free 
dom.  Then,  your  Honors,  if  slavery  can  only 
exist  by  positive  law,  and  not  by  implication ; 
and  if  we  must  presume  against  the  existence 
of  slavery,  and  against  the  existence  of  any 
law  authorizing  it ;  and  of  course  against  the 
existence  of  any  power  by  which  such  a  law 
could  be  enacted.  We  unroll  the  Constitution, 
with  an  absolute  presumption  that  it  does  not 
contain  such  a  power,  a  presumption  that  can 
yield  only  to  an  express  grant  of  it.  We  are 
to  inquire,  then,  whether  there  is  in  the  Consti 
tution  an  express  grant  of  power  to  Congress, 
to  legislate  in  favor  of  slavery ;  or  whether 
there  is  an  express  grant  for  some  necessary 
object  or  purpose ;  such  that  for  its  accomplish 
ment,  such  a  grant  in  reference  to  slavery  must 
necessarily  be  carried  with  it. 

In  considering  this  instrument,  much  valuable 
information  may  be  gleaned  from  the  history  of 
those  times ;  as  to  what  was  the  object  and  pur 
pose  of  the  framers  of  it.  But  the  historical 
argument  I  leave  entire  to  the  Attorney-Gen 
eral. 

In  contemplating  the  Constitution  itself,  we 
find  inscribed  upon  its  portal  the  very  objects  of 
its  creation,  to  which  alone  it  is  solemnly  dedi 
cated  ;  and  under  it  is  subscribed  the  names  of 
its  framers,  the  time,  place,  and  date  of  its 
erection. 


OBERLIN-WELL1NGTON  RESCUE. 


189 


Hear  that  solemn  inscription  and  ordination : 
"We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in 
order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for 
the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  wel 
fare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  our 
selves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish 
this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of 
America." 

When  we  ponder  upon  this  inscription,  which 
not  only  makes  the  purposes  of  the  creation  of 
the  instrument  itself  known,  and  also  makes 
this  solemn  dedication  of  it  to  these  purposes, 
and  when  we  find  named  among  the  very  first 
of  these  objects,  —  "to  establish  justice  "  and 
"  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves 
and  our  posterity," —  it  seems  perfectly  hopeless 
to  expect  to  find  any  thing  within  authorizing 
and  protecting  an  institution  annihilating  lib 
erty  and  rendering  justice  impossible. 

Having  passed  within  the  Constitution,  and 
bringing  with  us  the  rules  already  mentioned, 
and  in  the  strong  light  that  flashes  all  over  it 
from  the  preamble,  I  wish  to  add  the  solemn 
weight  of  the  tenth  amendment  —  "  The  pow 
ers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people." 

Thus,  then,  under  these  conditions,  and  with 
these  lights,  we  must  find  an  express  grant  of 
power  or  a  grant  of  a  subject-matter,  carrying 
with  it  the  grant  of  power;  and  that  without 
the  aid  of  any  implication.  Now  I  take  it  that 
no  one  has  ever  yet  found  this  power  in  any 
portion  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution. 
In  all  those  special  grants  it  nowhere  exists, 
openly  or  covertly.  It  neither  lurks  under 
one,  nor  is  appended  to  the  skirts  of  another. 
And  if  your  Honors  will  turn  your  attention  to 
the  la>t  clause  of  the  eighth  section,  which  is  a 
general  grant  of  such  powers  as  are  contained 
in  it,  to  wit,  "  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be 
necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execu 
tion  the  foregoing  powers  and  all  other  powers  " 
—  not  compacts,  guaranties,  injunctions,  or  res 
ervations  —  "  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  or  any  de 
partment  or  officer  thereof"  —  it  is  no  more  to 
be  found  there.  Certainly  it  never  has  been 
contended,  except  in  a  single  instance,  and,  I 
trust,  never  will  be  again,  that  there  has  been 
conferred  upon  any  department  of  the  General 
Government,  any  power  over  or  in  reference 
to  slavery,  and  we  have  already  seen  that  no 
power  not  specially  granted  can  be  held  to  ex 
ist.  But  it  is  safd  m  the  Prigg  case,  that  the 
warrant  for  legislation  on  this  subject  arises 
from  the  necessity  which  results  from  a  certain 
combination  of  circumstances.  I  understand 
Mr.  Justice  Story  to  say  that  the  power  is 
found  in  a  just  construction  of  all  the  bearings 
of  this  much  talked  of  second  section  of  the 
fourth  article.  ^  It  is  established  so  far  as  it  can 
be  by  the  opinion  of  that  Court,  that  the  claim 


of  a  master  upon  his  fugitive  slave,  is  a  judicial 
claim  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  and  that  being  such,  it  necessarily  called 
to  its  aid  and  for  the  purpose  of  its  enforcement 
the  legislative  power  latently  vested  in  Con 
gress.  Is  that  true,  your  Honors?  With  all 
deference  to  this  famous  decision,  if  it  be  true 
that  the  legislative  power  of  Congress  is  coex 
tensive  with  the  judicial  power  of  the  Federal 
Courts,  then  I  ask  what  becomes  of  State  au 
thority,  legislative  or  judicial?  For,  in  various 
ways,  all  conceivable  questions  of  right  can  be 
brought  before  the  Federal  judiciary,  and  has 
Congress  so  boundless  a  range  of  legislative 
power  as  that  ? 

Otherwise,  I  submit  that  the  proposition  is 
not  true.  If  the  legislative  power  granted  to 
Congress,  be  coextensive  with  the  power  vested 
in  the  national  judiciary,  then  it  must  follow, 
that  every  matter,  which  falls  within  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Courts,  by  necessity  falls  within  the 
legislative  power  of  Congress,  which  absolu  ily 
cannot  be  true !  For  then  if  a  party  in  Ken 
tucky  brings  a  suit  upon  a  promissory  note  for 
$500,  against  a  citizen  of  Ohio,  in  the  Federal 
Courts  as  he  may  do,  Congress  would  necessa 
rily  have  the  power  to  legislate  upon  it,  as 
upon  all  other  possible  matters  which  might 
constitute  "  a  judicial  claim  under  the  Consti 
tution,"  which  is  an  annihilation  of  the  States. 
Yet  this  is  the  doctrine  which  the  Court 
in  that  case  unqualifiedly  and  in  express  terms 
lays  down.  And  thus  I  do  not  find  —  a  thing 
which  I  certainly  was  not  very  anxiously  look 
ing  for  —  I  cannot  find  in  these  grants  of  power, 
that  either  directly  or  indirectly,  by  express 
grants  of  power  or  by  grants  of  subject- 
matter,  that  this  instrument  thus  far  conveys 
any  power  to  Congress  to  legislate  in  reference 
to  fugitive  slaves.  I  pass  to  the  fourth  article. 

This  article  seems  to  contain  provisions  with 
reference  to  certain  compacts  between  the 
States  as  individual  States ;  guarantees  them 
certain  rights,  and  provides  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  territories,  etc. 

Section  first  is  as  follows :  — 

"  Full  faith  and  credit  shall  bo  given  in  eacn 
State  to  the  public  acts,  records,  and  judicial 
proceedings  of  every  other  State.  And  Con 
gress  may,  by  general  laws,  prescribe  the 
manner  in  which  such  acts,  records,  and  pro 
ceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect 
thereof." 

If  your  Honors  will  turn  back  to  the  articles 
of  Confederation,  you  will  find  the  first  part  of 
this,  which  is  a  compact  merely,  to  be  almost 
a  literal  transcript  of  the  last  clause  of  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Confederation. 

As  it  existed  there  it  was  taken  to  be  and 
was  a  naked  compact,  conferring  no  particle  of 
power  to  legislate  for  its  enforcement,  and  was 
never  supposed  to  confer  any.  This  last  clause 
of  the  fourth  article  of  the  articles  of  Confede 
ration,  now  makes  the  first  section  of  the  "fourth 
article  of  the  Constitution.  Ten  years  it  stood, 


190 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


the  last  clause  of  the  fourth  of  the  Confede 
ration,  uncoupled  with  any  power ;  whence  it 
was  taken,  and  promoted  to  the  first  section 
of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution.  And 
not  only  that,  but  when  it  is  transferred  there 
is  coupled  with  it  an  express  grant  of  poicer, 
because  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  knew 
—  as  everybody  knows,  that  without  an  ex 
press  grant,  there  could  be  no  power;  and 
the  experience  under  the  Confederation,  had 
demonstrated  the  necessity  for  a  proper  en 
forcement  of  this  provision,  and  hence  the 
power  was  granted. 

The  second  clause,  of  the  second  section,  of 
article  fourth,  is  a  condensed  form  of  the  pro 
visions  of  the  first  clause,  of  the  fourth  article, 
of  the  articles  of  Confederation,  which  read, 
"  The  better  to  secure  a  perpetual  friendship," 
etc.  (See  4th  Art.  Const.) 

Standing  in  that  place  in  the  fourth  article, 
when  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  came  to 
"  make  up  their  jewels,"  and  incorporated  it  into 
their  structure,  they  gave  it  the  place  of  the 
first  clause,  in  the  second  section,  of  the  fourth 
article.  But  there  is  no  grant  of  power  attach 
ed  to  it,  in  the  transfer,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
first  section  of  this  article.  And  I  claim  that 
since,  as  a  matter  of  historical  verity,  the  neces 
sities  arising  under  the  provisions  of  that  clause 
are  sufficient  to  have  invoked  that  power  into 
life,  if  it  is  supposed  to  have  slumbered  within 
the  folds  of  that  purview.  And  yet  no  one  has 
contended,  that  I  am  aware  of,  that  there  is  any 
power  in  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  purpose 
of  enforcing  that  solemn  compact, — it  stands 
in  remarkable  contrast  with  its  fellow  section, 
which  had  long  remained  without  a  grant  of 
power,  but  when  transferred  into  the  Constitu 
tion  had  such  a  grant  appended  to  it,  while  this 
remains  without. 

The  second  clause,  of  that  second  section,  of 
the  fourth  article,  is  the  one  in  reference  to  the 
extradition  of  fugitives  from  justice.  This  is 
followed  by  the  third  and  sorely  contested 
clause,  which  treats  of  the  return  of  fugitives 
from  service,  or  labor. 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  an 
other,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  reg 
ulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service 
or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be 
due." 

In  some  respects,  standing  together  and  treat 
ing  of  the  extradition  of  certain  classes  of  per 
sons  —  in  each  case  spoken  of  as  persons  — 
these  second  and  third  clauses,  of  this  second 
section,  of  the  fourth  article,  are  proper  to  be 
compared,  to  see  how  far  they  may  be  taken  to 
gether.  As  the  third  clause  was  taken  from  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  so  was  the  second  from  the 
articles  of  Confederation ;  and  as  the  third  is 
not  materially  changed,  neither  is  the  second : 
both  preserve  the  same  thoughts  and  the  same 
meaning,  in  the  Constitution,  that  they  several 


ly  had  in  the  articles  of  Confederation  and  the 
Ordinance  of  '87,  and  both  alike,  in  both  places, 
are  uncoupled  with  any  grant  of  power  what 
ever.  This  Ordinance  of  '87  was,  I  believe,  the 
first  declaration  of  law  or  compact,  in  which 
the  people _  of  the  United  States,  as  a  nation, 
had  embodied  and  set  forth  a  provision  for  the 
rendition  of  fugitives  from  service,  and  this 
clause  there  stood  uncoupled  with  any  grant  of 
power  to  Congress.  It  is  true,  that  the  lapse  of 
time  between  that  Ordinance  and  the  Constitu 
tion  was  not  so  great  as  to  afford  the  States  any 
considerable  experience  of  its  workings,  but  it 
is  none  the  less  true  that  it  was  transferred 
without  the  expression  of  any  serious  desire  for 
its  amendment,  or  the  addition  of  a  grant  of 
power ;  it  was  transferred  to  the  Constitution, 
and  there  embodied  without  material  change,  to 
the  entire  satisfaction  of  all  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  and  the  people  of  the  States,  where 
it  reposes  in  its  own  original  force ;  and  not  im 
plying,  because  not  expressly  declaring,  the 
power  of  Congress  to  enforce  its  provisions  by 
legislation. 

Transferring  it,  then,  as  they  did,  and  leav 
ing  it  uncoupled  with  any  grant  of  power,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  that  it — like  its  two 
predecessors  in  the  same  section  —  is  to  be 
treated  as  a  simple  compact,  conferring  no  more 
power  upon  Congress,  and  calling  Federal  leg 
islation  no  more  to  its  aid,  than  any  compact 
outside  the  Constitution.  And  when  it  is  re 
membered  that  the  first  section  of  this  fourth 
article  has  an  express  power  appended,  and 
when  we  see  that  the  succeeding  third  section 
also  contains  a  grant  of  power,  which  is  omit 
ted  from  all  the  clauses  of  section  second,  the 
conclusion  is  perfectly  irresistible  that  it  was  in 
tended  that  no  power  should  attend  any  of  the 
clauses  of  that  second  section. 

I  do  not  mean  to  contend,  your  Honors,  that 
the  contemporaneous  construction  of  that  ar 
ticle  is  not  manifest,  to  some  extent,  perhaps,  in 
the  legislation  which  was  ventured  upon  under 
it,  by  a  Congress  composed  in  part  of  the  fram 
ers  of  the  Constitution  itself;  nor  yet  that  such 
construction  is  wholly  valueless,  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  the  presumption  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  a  law  was  enacted,  is  any  stronger  in 
reference  to  the  action  of  the  national  legisla 
ture,  than  in  reference  to  the  acts  of  the  legis 
latures  of  the  several  States  upon  the  same  sub 
ject.  But  if  this  be  taken  as  a  guide,  the  legis 
lation  of  the  several  States  neutralizes,  and 
more  than  neutralizes  any  legislation  of  Con 
gress.  Take  the  act  of  Pennsylvania  alone, 
and  then  group  about  it  the  dozen  others,  in 
cluding  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois. 
It  is  known  as  an  historical  fact  that  the  enact 
ment  of  1793  did  not  arise  out  of  the  necessi 
ties  of  any  case  which  sprung  up  under  this 
clause  of  the  Constitution.  But  a  question 
arose  between  the  executives  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Virginia,  in  reference  to  the  return  of  a  fu- 
jitive  from  justice,  who  had  fled  from  Pennsyl- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


191 


vania  to  Virginia;  and  it  Is  said  that,  in  the 
course  of  that  debate,  the  Governor  of  Virginia 
doubted  his  power  to  deliver  up  the  fugitive, 
and  the  matter  being  communicated  to  Presi 
dent  Washington,  and  by  him  transmitted  to 
Congress  in  a  message ;  for  the  purpose  of  set 
tling0  this  controversy,  the  legislative  power  of 
Congress  was  invoked,  and  the  Act  of  1793 
passed.  It  is  certainly  true,  as  I  think,  that 
both  sections  of  tnis  Act  are  equally  unconsti 
tutional,  for  I  see  no  more  authority  conferred 
upon  Congress  to  legislate  in  reference  to  fugi 
tives  from  justice  than  in  reference  to  fugitives 
from  service. 

These  two  matters  stand,  in  my  judgment,  as 
mere  naked  compacts.  There  certainly  is  not, 
in  either  case,  any  grant  of  power,  as  I  submit 
to  your  Honors,  by  the  provisions  of  this  instru 
ment  itself.  None,  whatever  !  I  submit,  so  far 
as  these  two  clauses  are  concerned,  —  and,  pre 
eminently,  so  far  as  the  third  is  concerned,  — 
that  the  text  nowhere,  in  any  form,  invests 
Congress  with  any  power.  It  is  not  necessary 
here  to  inquire  what  the  purpose  and  object  of 
its  creation,  so  far  as  the  means  are  concerned 
were.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  and  for 
the  purpose  for  which  we  stand  before  this 
Court,  to  say  that  if  we  go  back  to  the  original 
right  meaning  of  this  instrument  —  to  which 
we  all  shall  go  when  we  have  the  grace  and 
courage  —  no  one  will  contend,  for  a  solitary 
moment,  that  there  lurks  in  it,  anywhere,  any 
grant  of  power  to  Congress  to  legislate  upon 
the  subject.  None,  —  absolutely  none.  By 
the  very  nature  of  it,  such  a  grant  is  impossi 
ble.  The  main  force  of  this  clause  is  spent  in 
the  prohibition. 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  ser 
vice  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim 
of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due."  It  declares  that  the  States  shall  not 
legislate  adversely;  and  that,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  is  the  whole  force  of  it,  and  the  latter 
part  of  it  seems  to  explain  the  degree  of  the 
prohibition  :  —  so  far  are  they  prolu'bited  from 
legislating  adversely,  that  the  fugitive  not  only 
shall  not  be  discharged  from  the  obligation  to 
serve,  but  he  shall  be  delivered  up.  This  is  said 
to  impose  a  duty  upon  the  Federal  judiciary ; 
and  the  sweeping  argument  in  the  Prigg  case 
is,  that  whatever  falls  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Federal  judiciary  is  within  the  legislative 
purview  of  Congress,  which  I  have  already  dis 
posed  of.  But  it  is  clear  enough  that  this  en 
joins  a  duty  upon  the  States  alone,  and  upon  no 
department  of  the  General  Government.  I  am 
perfectly  frank  to  say  —  if  I  may  be  permitted 
so  far  to  depart  from  the  argument  —  that,  as  a 
citizen,  I  accept  the  Constitution  with  all  its 
compacts  and  injunctions,  and  I  stand  here  only 
for  the  purpose  of  contending  for  the  Constitu 
tion  in  its  purity,  and  protesting  against  un 


warranted  and   unwarrantable   perversions   of 
it. 

This  brings  me  to  my  second  proposition.  *v 

We  claim  that  if  your  Honors  shall  find, 
either  looking  at  this  instrument  as  it  invites 
your  attention ;  or  through  the  decisions  of  other 
Courts,  whose  decisions  you  accept  as  binding; 
that  Congress  has  power  delegated  to  it  by  the 
Constitution  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  in 
question;  we  still  claim  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  enact  this  particular  law. 

And  first,  they  had  not  this  power  because 
this  act  violates  the  otherwise  inviolable  right  of 
persons  to  personal  liberty.  It  subjects  a  per 
son  to  the  actual  manual  caption  of  whoever 
pretends  to  be  his  master.  I  need  not  stop  here 
to  detain,  much  less  to  attempt  to  entertain  this 
Court  with  that  part  of  the  legal  argument  which 
pertains  to  this  point ;  nor  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Court  to  the  fact  that  slaves  as  slaves,  are 
excluded  from  the  Constitution  by  name.  Nor 
need  I  read  to  you  the  debates  in  reference  to 
this  matter,  which  took  place  in  the  Convention 
where  the  Constitution  was  framed,  as  well  as 
those  which  sprang  up  in  the  various  State  Con 
ventions  which  were  called  to  discuss  and  pass 
upon  the  Constitution  as  it  was  offered  to  the 
people.  That  the  Constitution,  if  it  treats  of 
slaves  at  all,  treats  of  them  as  persons,  and 
hence  confuses  them  —  if  such  a  term  may  be 
used  —  with  the  great  mass  of  other  persons 
within  the  States,  I  think  cannot  be  disputed. 
I  do  not  now  recollect  that  there  are  more  than 
three  allusions  in  the  Constitution  which  are 
supposed  to  have  reference  to  slaves.  The  first 
is  in  the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of 
article  first,  which  relates  to  the  apportionment 
of  representation.  The  second  is  found  in  sec 
tion  ninth  of  article  first,  in  reference  to  the 
slave  trade.  The  third,  and  I  think  the  only 
remaining  one  claimed,  is  found  in  this  third 
clause  of  the  second  section  of  article  4th. 

This  matter  has  been  passed  upon  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  Grous  v, 
Slaughter,  15  Peters,  where  the  Court,  Judge 
McLean,  giving  the  opinion,  expressly  decides 
that  the  Constitution  treats  slaves  as  persons 
exclusively. 

If  this  be  so,  then  not  only  is  there  nothing 
in  the  Constitution  which  intimates  what  por 
tion  of  the  people  shall  be  treated  as  slaves, 
but  no  Act  of  Congress  might  distinguish  be 
tween  the  persons  who  might  be  so  classed 
under  it,  and  the  great  mass  of  other  persons. 
That  is  not  attempted  on  the  part  of  this 
statute.  It  provides  that  PERSONS  —  all  per 
sons  —  owing  service  or  labor,  in  one  State  and 
escaping  into  another,  may  be  seized  by  manual 
caption ;  and  in  this,  we  submit,  it  completely 
violates  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  itself 
This  cannot  be  tolerated.  There  is  nothing 
which  designates  the  persons  who  may  be  seized, 
but  it  arms  every  man  who  may  choose  to 
assume  to  be  the  owner  of  another  man,  with 
power  by  mere  brute  force,  to  seize  him  and 


192 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


drag  him  away  from  the  protection  of  law. 
Can  it  be  claimed  for  a  moment  that  the  Con 
stitution  confers  power  to  enact  such  a  law  ? 
In  a  free  State  the  presumption  is  that  every 
man  is  a  freeman.  Does  this  presumption 
cease  with  the  approach  of  one  who  claims  to 
be  the  owner  of  a  citizen  ?  Does  it  not  go 
on  up  to  the  ultimate  point  where  he  is  legally 
proven  to  be  a  fugitive,  owing  service  or  labor, 
as  claimed  ?  Now  it  is  true  that  third  parties 
are  to  take  notice  from  acts  and  claims ;  the 
claim  may  be  notice  to  them ;  but  it  does  not 
destroy  the  presumption  of  the  law,  that  the 
man  claimed  is  a  freeman.  I  know  that  in 
this  same  Prigg  case,  the  Court  undertake  to 
say  that  the  title  of  the  master  to  his  slave, 
as  it  existed  in  Kentucky,  is  preserved  intact 
in  Ohio ;  but  I  submit  with  all  deference,  that 
this  is  not  and  cannot  be  true.  The  decision  of 
no  court  can  carry  the  municipal  laws  of  one 
State  into  another,  and  say  that  when  a  slave 
runs  away,  he  wrenches  from  the  statute  book 
a  portion  of  the  law  of  the  State  from  which 
he  flees,  and  carries  it  with  him,  as  a  sort  of 
legal  halter  upon  which  the  master  may  seize, 
and  lead  him  back  whence  he  came.  Will  it 
be  claimed  that  a  man  can  sell  and  transfer  his 
slave  in  Ohio  ?  or  that  he  may  whip  him  for 
insubordination  to  subdue  him  ?  Then  slavery 
is  actually  an  institution  of  Ohio !  I  say  that 
the  instant  a  slave  touches  Ohio  soil,  he  casts 
his  chains  —  the  whole  exuvice  of  the  slave  from 
him,  and  becomes  a  freeman,  but  still  owing 
service  — not  morally,  not  by  virtue  of  any 
contract,  but  by  this  curiously  worded  phrase 
of  the  Constitution — "  owing  service  or  labor ; " 
he  brings  with  him  this  obligation  as  a  dark 
stain,  a  horrid  contingency,  and  through  it 
may  be  seized  as  a  PP:RSON  —  but  never  as  a 
slave — and  BY  "DUE  PROCESS  OF  LAW,"  this 
obligation  being  proven,  may  be  delivered  up 
to  his  master,  and  again  resubjugated  to  slavery 
in  the  State  from  whence  he  escaped,  but  not 
in  Ohio.  While  here,  for  every  other  conceiv 
able  purpose,  he  is  wholly  within  the  protection 
of  our  laws.  This  is  the  whole  extent  and 
force  that  this  article  of  the  Constitution 
permits.  A  slave  cannot  be  claimed  as  prop 
erty,  because  nowhere  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  any  more  than  in  the  Con 
stitution  of  Ohio,  is  any  property  in  man 
recognized.  The  instant,  therefore,  that  a 
master  in  Ohio  undertakes  to  deal  with  a  fugi 
tive  from  his  service  as  property,  he  is  with 
out  color  of  constitutional  right,  and  should  be 
dealt  with  as  a  criminal.  A  fugitive  from  ser 
vice  cannot  be  held  as  property,  not  only  be 
cause  property  in  man  is  not  recognized  in  the 
Constitution,  but  because  with  property,  and 
its  incidents  as  such,  the  Federal  Government 
has  nothing  to  do,  save  in  the  very  limited 
manner  specified.  Congress  can,  under  any 
circumstances,  legislate  upon  slaves  only  as  per 
sons,  even  if  it  had  full  power  to  legislate  in 
aid  of  the  provisions  of  this  clause.  I  know 


the  decision  in  the  Prigg  case  claims  to  settle 
the  rule  to  the  contrary,  but  your  Honors  are 
aware  that  I  do  not  recognize  that  decision  as 
conclusive  of  these  questions.  I  say,  then, 
that  this  statute  reduces  persons  to  things,  and 
is  therefore  no  law. 

I  claim  further  that  this  statute  directly  vio 
lates  the  fourth  article  of  the  Amendments  to 
the  Constitution,  which  provides  that,  — 

"  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their 
persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  un 
reasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be 
violated,  and  no  warrants  shall  issue  but  upon 
probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirma 
tion,  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be 
searched,  and  the  person  or  things  to  be 
seized." 

Again  it  is  in  express  violation  of  article 
five.  "  No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a 
capital,  or  otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  on 
a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury, 
except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval 
forces,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in  actual  service 
in  time  of  war  or  public  danger ;  nor  shall  any 
person  be  subject  for  the  same  offence  to  be 
put  twice  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb ;  nor  shall 
be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case,  to  be  wit 
ness  against  himself;  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  lib 
erty,  or  properly,  without  due  process  of  law; 
nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public 
use  without  just  compensation." 

Now  am  I  forced,  your  Honors,  to  stand  here 
and  claim  that  a  man  cannot,  by  virtue  of  a 
mere  power  of  attorney,  or  of  his  own  unsup 
ported  claim  of  ownership,  come  here,  and  hav 
ing  already  decided  that  a  certain  citizen  of 
Ohio  is  his  slave  —  no  matter  what  may  be  his 
color,  lineage,  or  condition  —  be  his  own  bailiff", 
magistrate,  jury,  and  sheriff*,  and  that  such  a  de 
privation  of  a  man  of  his  liberty  is  not  "  DUZ 
PROCESS  OF  LAW  ?  "  If  so,  there  is  no  constitu 
tional  guaranty  for  the  personal  security  of  a 
man,  woman,  or  child  in  Ohio. 

As  to  what  is  due  process  of  law,  see  2  Kent's 
Com.  p.  3. 

I  claim,  in  the  second  place,  your  Honors, 
that  this  act  is  void  because  it  vests  judicial 
powers  in  certain  commissioners,  who  are  nei 
ther  created,  appointed,  nor  paid  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  that  part  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  defines  the  conditions  upon 
which  Federal  officers  may  exercise  judicial 
functions.  See  article  third.  This  question 
will  arise  in  the  second  count  of  the  indictment 
set  forth  in  the  record  of  Langston's  case.  The 
Government  therein  count  upon  a  seizure  of 
the  alleged  fugitive  John,  by  virtue  of  a  process 
issued  by  one  of  these  U.  S.  Commissioners. 

I  claim,  in  the  third  instance,  that  this  statute 
is  void  because  it  not  only  authorizes  the  recap 
tion  of  a  person  by  an  alleged  owner  with  or 
without  one  of  these  unconstitutional  commis 
sioner's  warrants,  but  authorizes  the  master  to 
fix  his  status  as  being  a  slave  and  to  return  him 
to  endless  bondage  in  violation  of  the  seventh 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


193 


Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  -which  guaran 
tees  a  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases  where  the  value 
of  the  matter  in  controversy  amounts  to  twenty 
dollars  or  upwards ;  and  here  we  are  not  estop 
ped  by  the  Prigg  case.  For  the  question  was 
not  there  made.  Judge  Story  himself  since 
declared  that  that  question  was  not  passed 
upon.  (See  his  memoirs  by  his  son,  W.  W. 
Story.) 

Then  we  ask  the  discharge  of  these  relators 
on  the  ground  that  the  act,  upon  which  all  the 
proceedings  against  them  are  based,  is  uncon 
stitutional  and  void ;  and  we  claim  that  it  is  un 
constitutional  because  Congress  had  no  power 
to  enact  any  law  upon  the  subject ;  and  be 
cause  most  emphatically  it  had  no  power  to 
enact  a  law  like  this ;  which  in  its  several  pro 
visions  so  flagitiously  tramples  upon  the  funda 
mental  rights  of  the  citizen  as  guaranteed  by 
the  Constitution  in  explicit  terms. 

And  now  I  wish  to  call  your  Honor's  atten 
tion  to  one  point  more  —  my  third  general 
proposition. 

I  claim  that  even  if  your  Honors  should 
adjudge  my  previous  positions  unsound,  and 
should  hold  that  Congress  not  only  had  power 
to  legislate  in  regard  to  fugitive  slaves,  and  in 
aid  of  the  master,  but  that  it  had  power  to 
enact  this  particular  law  —  so  glaringly  unjust 
and  unwarranted,  as  we  have  been  accustomed 
to  believe  it  to  be ;  —  still,  in  looking  into  this 
record  your  Honors  will  find  no  crime  charged 
under  that  law.  The  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  Northern  District  of 
Ohio,  from  which  this  record  comes,  being  a 
court  of  limited  jurisdiction,  we  have  nothing 
to  suppose  in  its  favor,  and  if  no  crime  under 
the  act  upon  which  the  proceedings  are  claimed 
to  be  based  is  charged ;  that  Court  had  no 
jurisdiction  of  the  case.  Briefly  on  this  point. 
First.  It  does  not  appear  from  that  record,  that 
the  alleged  fugitive  John,  was  held  to  service 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  "under  the  laws 
thereof; "  and  if  he  were  not  held  to  service  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  from 
which  he  escaped,«then  he  had  a  right  to  es 
cape,  and  no  one  had  a  right  to  recapture 
him,  and  if  any  one  did  recapture  him,  no 
offence  could  be  committed  in  rescuing  him 
from  such  custody.  For  the  presumption  will 
not  be  that  he  was  so  held  to  service,  in  the 
absence  of  such  averment,  but  always  the  con 
trary,  because  presumptions  are  always  in  favor 
of  liberty.  I  claim  that  the  allegation  that  he 
was  held  to  service  in  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
"  under  the  laws  thereof,"  is  material,  and  its 
omission  fatal.  5  McLean,  460-469. 

Second.  It  is  decided  in  the  Prigg  case,  if 
that  is  to  be  taken  as  law,  that  in  the  absence 
of  any  legislation  whatever,  the  owner  of  a 
slave  has  a  right,  without  the  color  of  any 
process,  to  pursue,  recapture,  and  return  him 
to  the  domicil  of  his  master.  That  is  a  judi 
cial  construction  of  the  provision  of  the  Consti 
tution.  And  indeed  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of 

25 


1850  provides  also,  following  that  construction, 
that  the  owner,  or  his  substituted  agent,  may 
in  like  manner  pursue  and  recapture;  —  but 
for  what  purpose  ?  To  return  him  ?  No :  — 
for  the  sole  and  solitary  purpose  of  taking  him 
before  a  U.  S.  Commissioner,  to  have  in  a 
qualified  manner  his  status  judicially  deter 
mined  ;  —  so  that  outside  of  that  law  the  owner 
may  seize  and  return  him ;  but  if  he  acts  under 
that  law,  neither  he  nor  his  agent  can  restore 
him  to  his  domicil,  but  he  shall  take  him  before 
a  U.  S.  Commissioner,  who  shall  first  settle  the 
question  of  status,  and  authorize  the  return. 
AVhen  your  Honors  come  to  examine  this  rec 
ord,  you  will  find  that  the  alleged  fugitive  John 
was  sought  to  be  seized,  not  outside  of  the  law, 
but  by  virtue  of  a  power  of  attorney  under  the 
law,  —  and  there  it  stops.  Now  it  is  not  suffi 
cient  for  this  indictment  to  allege  that  the  fugi 
tive  was  recaptured  and  held ;  it  must  go  far 
ther,  and  allege  that  he  was  to  be  taken  before 
a  commissioner,  which  it  does  not.  Hence  from 
such  a  holding  it  was  no  crime  to  rescue  him. 
And  therefore  I  repeat  my  claim,  that  these 
indictments  are  fatally  defective  under  this  law, 
because  they  do  not  allege  that  the  fugitive 
said  to  have  been  rescued,  was  held  to  service 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  "  under  the  laws 
thereof,"  nor  that  he  had  been  seized  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  him  before  a  commissioner, 
to  establish  his  status. 

And  lastly,  I  further  claim  that  in  the  State 
of  Ohio,  and  in  reference  to  all  slaves  escaping 
from  the  State  of  Kentucky,  that  law  is  inope 
rative.  I  claim  this  under  the  preexisting,  and 
the  still  existing,  and  the  paramount  authority  of 
the  Ordinance  of  1 787.  I  need  not  stop  here  to 
detail  the  provisions  of  that  ordinance.  But  I  re 
mark  that  that  Congress  of  the  Confederation, 
representing  the  sovereignty  of  the  nation,  in 
whom  the  title  of  the  North-west  Territory  vest 
ed,  had  the  power  to  make  that  ordinance.  I 
claim  that  it  was,  as  it  alleges  to  be,  a  compact 
for  all  time  to  come.  I  am  not  here  to  claim 
that  by  the  full  consent  of  all  possible  'parties 
concerned,  it  might  not  be  changed ;  but  I  do 
claim  that  no  such  change,  repeal,  modification, 
or  amendment  has  been  made.  It  was  not  re 
pealed  by  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  nor  by  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky  in  1792,  for  the  people  of  the  North-west 
Territory  were  not  parties  to  those  acts,  nor  by 
the  Act  of  Congress  authorizing  Ohio  to  form  a 
constitution,  for  that  required  the  new  State  to 
come  in  pursuant  to  the  ordinance.  And  cer 
tainly  the  adoption  of  the  State  Constitution  did 
not  repeal  it,  for  that  embodies  the  provisions 
of  the  ordinance  in  itself.  When,  where,  how, 
and  by  whom  have  the  terms  of  this  grand  old 
charter  been  set  aside  ? 

I  need  not  remind  this  Court,  that  in  a 
solemn  adjudication  by  this  Court,  it  was  de 
cided  that  the  provisions  of  that  ordinance  were 
in  force.  See  5  Ohio,  419,  and  also  in  the  case 
of  Spooner  v.  McNeil,  1  McLean,  349,  this  do«- 


194 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


trine  is  solemnly  reaffirmed,  and  his  Honor, 
Judge  McLean,  takes  judicial  pains  to  dwell 
upon  the  perpetual  and  inviolable  freedom  thus 
pledged  to  this  soil,  declaring  that  nothing  short 
of  revolution  can  ever  plant  upon  it  in  any 
form  the  accursed  institution  of  slavery.  I  do, 
therefore,  stand  here  solemnly  to  contend,  that, 
under  that  ordinance,  which  limits  in  its  very 
terms  the  capture  of  slaves  to  those  who  escape 
from  some  one  of  the  original  thirteen  States, — 
Congress  had  no  power  to  authorize  the  recap 
tion  in  Ohio  of  fugitives  from  service  in  Ken 
tucky. 

And  now,  with  this  brief  presentation  of  the 
points  to  which  I  have  called  attention,  and 
leaving  whole  regions  of  argument  untouched, 
and  leaving  also  all  the  grave  and  great  con 
siderations  which  gather  about  this  case,  and 
strongly  press  for  strong  speech  unuttered,  I 
submit 'this  weighty  matter  with  all  interests 
and  consequences,  to  the  decision  of  this  High 
Tribunal. 

The  Court  took  a  recess  until  half  past  2,  p.  M. 

FIRST  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Mr.  SWAYNK,  in  behalf  of  the  respondent, 
declined  making  oral  argument,  for  the  reason 
that  he  thought  the  authorities  presented  in  his 
printed  brief  must,  without  elaboration,  more 
than  satisfy  the  Court  of  the  soundness  of  the 
positions  therein  taken,  and  also  because  but 
recently  he  had  argued  before  the  Court  similar 
points  at  considerable  length. 

His  pi-iuted  brief  is  this  :  — 

Supreme  Court  of  Ohio, 
Special  Session — May  25,  1859. 
Simeon  Bushnell          "1 

D.  L.  Wightman,  Sheriff  of  f  Habeas  CorPUS' 
Cuyahoga  County,  Ohio.    J 

Statement,  Points,  and  A  uthorities  under  Rule 
IL  (ybr  Oral  Argument), 

STATEMENT. 

The  relator  has  been  indicted  and  convicted, 
before  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio,  of  offences 
under  the  Act  of  Congress,  upon  the  subject  of 
fugitives  from  labor,  passed  September  18, 
1850.  He  has  been  sentenced,  and  is  in  con 
finement  accordingly.  The  object  of  this  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  is  to  set  him  at  liberty.  The 
respondent's  return  shows  these  facts. 

TOINTS    AND    AUTHORITIES. 

I.  The  statute  of  Ohio,  in  regard  to  writs  of 
habeas  corpus,  expressly  excepts  and  excludes 
from  its  operation  "persons  convicted  of  some 
crime  or  offence  for  which  they  stand  committed" 
This  is  a  case  of  that  kind.  3  Howard  103, 
Ex  pavto  Dorrj  3  Pet.  193;  7  Wheat.  38. 


IL  Where  a  Court  has  acquired  prior  juris 
diction  or  possession  of  a  subject  of  litigation, 
a  coordinate  tribunal  will  in  nowise  interfere 
with  the  action  of  such  court  touching  such 
subject.  The  tribunal  which  first  acquires 
jurisdiction  holds  it  to  the  end,  and  it  is  exclu 
sive.  3  Ohio  St.  Rep.  105,  Keating  v.  Spink; 
16  Ohio  Rep.  405,  Merril  v.  Lake  et  al. ;  9 
Wheaton  532,  Smith  v.  Mclver;  20  Howard 
594,  Taylor  et  al.  v.  Carrol;  10  Peters  400, 
Ilagan  v.  Lucas;  3  Peters  304,  Harris  v. 
Dennie ;  7  Howard  471,  Peck  v.  Jennis;  8 
Howard  107,  Williams  v.  Benedict;  17  How 
ard  475,  Pullian  v.  Osborne ;  6  McLean  365, 
Ex  parte  llobinson ;  4  East  523 ;  25  Eng.  Ch> 
Rep.  474;  3  Paige  199;  5  Id.  489;  7  Idem 
514;  9  Yesey  335;  1  Jacobs  572;  2  Sch.  & 
Lef.  229. 

III.  The  judgment  of  the  District  Court  is 
conclusive.  It  cannot  be  collaterally  ques 
tioned.  1  Ohio  St.  Rep.  233,  Bank  of  Wooster 
v.  Stevens;  3  Id.  494,  Sheldon's  Lessee  «. 
Newton. 

"  The  power  to  hear  and  determine  a  cause 
is  jurisdiction  ;  and  it  is  coram  judice  whenever 
a  case  is  presented  which  brings  this  power 
into  action."  Ibid.;  case  last  cited. 

See  also  2  Smith's  Leading  Cases  —  Duchess 
of  Kingston's  case  —  and  the  authorities  there 
cited. 

IY.  The  validity  of  a  judgment  cannot  be 
collaterally  questioned  in  this  way.  A  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  cannot  be  made  to  perform  the 
functions  of  a  writ  of  error.  If  the  process 
under  which  the  relator  is  held  be  regular  on 
its  face,  this  Court  will  not  interfere  in  this  mode 
of  procedure.  1  Barb.  341,  In  the  matter 
of  Prime;  51  Eng.  Com.  Law  Rep.  648,  655, 
Ex  parte  Partington ;  57  Idem,  215,  In  re 
Richard  Dunn ;  57  Idem,  416,  Ex  parte  Cobbet; 
68  Idem,  564,  567,  Dimes  case  ;  2  Greene  312, 
Peltier  v.  Pennington ;  4  McCord  233,  Ex 
parte  Gilchrist;  1  Watts  66,  Comm.  v.  Leakey; 
5  Ind.  290,  Wright  v.  The  State ;  6  McLean 
355,  Ex  parte  Robinson ;  2  Paine  348,  In  the 
matter  of  Martin  ;  3  Pet.  193  ;  7  Wheat.  38. 

Y.  When  it  appears,  in  proceedings  upon  a 
habeas  corpus,  issued  by  a  State  Judge,  that  the 
relator  is  held  under  authority  emanating  from 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  the  Judge  can 
proceed  no  farther,  but  must  remand  the  pris 
oner.  21  How.  — ,  United  States  v.  Booth;  5 
McLean,  199,  Morris  v.  Newton;  9  Johnson, 
239,  Ferguson's  case;  Hurd's  Hah.  Cor.  198, 
Mr.  Justice  Nelson's  charge. 

VI.  The  adjudications  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  upon  all  questions  within 
its  jurisdiction,  are  binding  upon  the  State 
Courts,  and  conclusive. 

(2.)  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
provides : — 

Art.  6.  "  This  constitution,  and  the  laws 
which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and 
all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


195 


supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and  the  judges  in 
every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary,  notwithstanding." 

(3.)  Art  3,  sec.  1.  "The  judicial  power  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  one  Su 
preme  Court,  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the 
Congress  may,  from  tune  to  time,  ordain  and 
establish." 

Sec.  2.  "  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to 
all  cases,  in  law  and  equity,  arising  under  this 
constitution ;  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
and  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made  un 
der  their  authority ;  to  all  cases  affecting  em- 
bassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls ; 
to  all  cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdic 
tion  ;  to  controversies  to  which  the  United 
States  shall  be  a  party ;  TO  CONTROVERSIES 
BETWEEN  TWO  OR  MORE  STATES  ;  between 
a  state  and  citizens  of  another  state ;  between 
citizens  of  different  states ;  between  citizens  of 
the  same  state,  claiming  lands  under  grants  of 
different  states;  and  between  a  state,  or  the 
citizens  thereof,  and  foreign  states,  citizens,  or 
subjects." 

(4.)  The  last  clause  of  Art.  6,  provides  that 
"  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall 
be  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  this 
constitution." 

(5.)  The  25th  section  of  the  judiciary  act  of 
Congress,  of  1 789,  gives  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  appellate  jurisdiction  over 
the  adjudications  of  the  highest  State  courts,  in 
the  numerous  class  of  cases  therein  specified. 

(6.)  The  proposition  contended  for  on  the 
other  side,  involves  these  consequences  :  — 

It  would  make  the  subordinate  equal  or  su 
perior  to  the  appellate  tribunal.  There  would 
be  thirty-two  independent  judicatories  besides 
the  courts  of  the  Union,  with  equal  authority 
to  expound  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States. 

The  same  property,  real  or  personal,  recov 
ered  in  a  court  of  the  United  States,  might  be 
recovered  back  in  a  State  court. 

If  a  party  be  convicted  of  treason,  piracy, 
murder,  counterfeiting,  robbery  of  the  mail,  the 
importation  of  slaves  from  Africa,  or  any  other 
offence  against  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
any  Slate  Judge  or  Commissioner,  authorized  to 
issue  writs  of  habeas  corpus,  may  issue  such 
writ,  and  set  the  prisoner  free.  Vide  7  Cush. 
300;  12  Wend.  314,  326;  3  Cow.  753;  5 
Cranch,  136  ;  21  How.  United  States  v.  Booth  ; 
1  Serg.  &  R.  352,  Com.  v.  Robinson ;  Kurd's 
Hab.  Corp.  204;  16  How.  369,  State  Bank  v. 
Knoon;  18  Id.  331,  Dodge  v.  Woolsey. 

VII.  The  Act  of  1850  is  constitutional  and 
valid.  See  Const.  U.  S.,  Art.  4,  Sec.  2 ;  for  the 
Act,  see  Brightley's  Digest,  294. 

(1.)    The  question  of  constitutionality  is  the 
same  under  this  Act  as  under  the  Act  of  1793. 1 
"^The  law  of  1850  stands,  in  this  respect,  pre-  I 
cisely  on   the  same  ground  with  the  Act  of! 


1 793  ;  and  the  same  grounds  of  argument  which 
show  the  unconstitutionally  of  one,  apply  with 
equal  force  to  the  other ;  and  the  same  answer 
must  be  made  to  them."  7  Gushing,  285,  Sim's 
case  ;  Hurd  on  Hab.  Corp.  196. 

(2.)  The  Act  of  1793  was  held  to  be  consti 
tutional  and  valid  in  the  following  cases  :  —  9 
Johnson,  67,  Glenn  v  Hodges,  1812  (Supreme 
Court  of  New  York  —  Kent,  Spencer,  Thomp 
son,  Varness,  and  Yates)  ;  5  Sergeant  &  R.  64, 
Wright  v.  Deacon,  1819;  2  Pick.  11,  Com.  v. 
Griffith,  1823  ;  12  Wend.  314,  Jack  v.  Martin, 
1834;  16  Peters,  539,  Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania, 
1842;  10  Barr,  517,  Kaufman  v.  Oliver,  1848 ; 
5  How.  229,  Jones  v.  Van  Zandt,  1847.  The 
Act  of  1850  has  been  held  to  be  valid  in— 7  Cush- 
ing,  294,  Sim's  case  ;  16  Barbour,  268,  Henry  v* 
Lowell;  21  Howard,  United  States  v.  Booth. 

The  case  last  cited  was  decided  by  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  last  winter. 
The  Court  ivas  unanimous.  They  have  been  so 
upon  all  occasions,  when  the  constitutionality  of 
the  Act  of  1 793  was  before  them.  It  is  deemed 
unnecessary  to  refer  particularly  to  the  numer 
ous  decisions  of  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United 
States,  in  regard  to  both  acts.  They  all  agree 
with  the  cases  above  cited. 

VIII.  No  court  will  hold  a  law  to  be  uncon 
stitutional,  unless  its  unconstitutionality  be  clear 
beyond  doubt.  1  Ohio  State  Rep.  82,  83,  84, 
C.,  W.  &  Z.  Railroad  Co.  v.  Clinton  County ;  7 
Idem,  548,  State  v.  Kennon  et  al;  3  Dallas, 
171;  4  Dallas,  14;  8  Cranch,  87;  14  Mass. 
345;  16  Pick.  95;  llPenn.  70;  2  Monroe,  178; 
9  Dana,  514  ;  2  Yerger,  623. 

With  such  a  body  of  adjudications,  and  the 
judgment  of  jurists  of  such  learning  and  ability, 
sustaining  the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  who 
can  say  that  its  unconstitutionality  is  clear  be 
yond  a  doubt  ? 

GEO.  W.  BELDEN,  and 
N.  H.  S  WAYNE, 
of  Counsel  for  the  Respondent. 

It  is  but  proper  to  say  that  Messrs.  Belden 
and  Swayne  were  never  employed  by  the  Re 
spondent,  but  acted  either  in  behalf  of  the  U. 
States,  or  of  their  own  motion. 


In  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State 
of  Ohio. 

Habeas  Corpus. 


The  State  of  Ohio,  ex  rel. 
Simeon  Bushnell  et  alius 
v. 

David  L.Wightman,  Sher 
iff  of  the  County  of  Cuy- 
ahoga. 

ARGUMENT    ON   BEHALF    OF    THE    STATE,    BY 
MR.   ATTORNEY-GENERAL    WOLCOTT. 

MAY  IT  PLEASE  YOUR  HONORS  :  —  It  is 
to  be  regretted  that  the  learned  counsel,  who 
on  this  occasion  represent  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  have  (as  one  of  their  number 
has  just  announced  to  your  Honors)  concluded 
not  to  argue  this  cause  in  open  court,  because 
that  conclusion  deprives  us  of  all  those  advan- 


196 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


tages  which  grow  out  of  an  orderly  oral  discus 
sion,  where  voice  responds  to  voice,  and  eye 
looks  into  eye,  the  best  mode  which  the  wit  of 
man  has  yet  devised  for  eliciting  the  truth  as 
between  contending  parties.  But  while  I  re 
gret,  I  have  no  right  to  complain  of  their  decis 
ion.  It  is  their  undoubted  prerogative  to  con 
duct  the  case  on  their  part  in  such  way  as  to 
them  shall  seem  best,  even  though  the  result  is, 
as  here,  to  leave  us  utterly  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
grounds  on  which  they  rest  their  resistance  to 
this  application,  except  so  far  as  the  same  may 
be  gathered  from  the  skeleton  "brief  of  points," 
which  was  only  a  few  moments  since  placed  in 
the  hands  of  your  Honors  and  myself. 

And  now,  what  is  the  case  before  your  Hon 
ors  ?  The  State  of  Ohio,  in  the  exercise  of  one 
of  its  most  unquestionable  attributes  of  sover 
eignty,  and  proceeding  upon  the  representation 
of  two  of  its  citizens,  presented,  in  the  appro 
priate  mode,  that  they  were  unlawfully  re 
strained  of  their  liberty  by  David  L.  Wightman, 
Sheriff  of  Cuyahoga  county,  has  sent  forth  its 
great  prerogative  writ  to  that  individual,  com 
manding  him  to  produce  before  your  Honors, 
as  the  repositories  of  the  Supreme  Judicial 
Power  of  the  State,  the  bodies  of  its  citizens, 
and  to  certify  to  you  the  authority  by  which  he 
so  restrains  them. 

Responding  to  this  writ,  the  sheriff  has  here 
and  now  produced  their  bodies,  and  for  answer 
as  to  the  cause  thereof;  returns  that  he  holds 
them  in  custody  by  virtue  of  a  warrant  issued 
to  him  by  the  Marshal  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Northern  District  of  Ohio ;  which  warrant 
is  predicated  upon  certain  proceedings  had  in 
the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  that 
same  District;  an  authenticated  transcript  of 
which  is  incorporated  into  his  return.  From 
this  transcript  it  appears  that  the  relators  have 
been  convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  act  of  Con 
gress  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  ap 
proved  on  the  18th  of  September,  1850,  and 

were   thereupon  sentenced  to  imprisonment  in  j  within  these  limits  do  not  belong  to  it.     But  to 
the  jail  of  Cuyahoga  county.  what  purpose  is  it  that  this  power  is  thus  spe- 

T his  conviction  and  sentence  being  the  cause  cifically  bounded  in,  if  the  power  so  intended  to 
of  the  relators'  detention,  the  Court  are  here  be  restrained  may  at  any  time  overleap  these 
called  upon  to  inquire  into  the  validity  thereof,  i  limits  V  The  distinction  (said  Chief  Justice 
That  validity  is  now  challenged  alike  by  the  re-  |  Marshall,  in  Marbury  v.  Madison)  between  a 
lators,  and  the  State  of  Ohio^  which  latter  alone  j  government  of  limited  and  of  absolute  power 
Ire-present  —  on  the  ground  that  the  act  of  j  is  utterly  gone,  if  the  defined  restrictions  do  not 


thority  be  assumed  by  any  court,  judge,  or  min 
isterial  officer  of  the  Federal  Government,  the 
State  of  which  the  relator  is  a  citizen,  and  with 
in  which  he  is  detained,  is  powerless,  to  inquire 
into  the  validity  of  that  detention.  In  other 
words,  it  is  said  —  for  the  claim  presupposes 
and  admits  all  this — that  however  unwar 
rantable  may  be  the  exercise  of  the  assumed 
authority,  however  tyrannical,  arbitrary,  and  un 
lawful  the  detention,  however  directly  pro 
hibited  in  the  particular  instance,  by  the  plain 
words  of  the  Constitution  ;  yet  the  State  tribu 
nals  are  powerless  to  redress  the  acknowledged 
wrong;  the  victim  has  no  appeal  but  to  the 
usurper  himself.  Now  I  submit  to  your  Hon 
ors,  that  the  bare  statement  of  this  claim  is  its 
own  most  conclusive  answer.  For,  in  effect, 
the  proposition  as  narrowed  doAvn  to  this  par 
ticular  case,  is  that  Federal  judges  may,  by  as 
serting  in  the  form  of  an  adjudication,  power 
to  do  an  act  unconstitutional  in  itself,  bind  all 
persons  whatever,  and  preclude  them  from 
inquiring  either  into  the  validity  of  the  act  done 
or  the  existence  of  the  power  to  do  it. 

But,  may  it  please  your  Honors,  if  a  Judge, 
by  declaring  that  he  has  power  to  imprison,  can 
estop  all  inquiry  into  the  existence  of  that  pow 
er,  he  may  equally,  by  insisting  that  he  has 
power  over  property  or  life,  estop  all  inquiry 
into  the  existence  of  that  power.  And  what  is 
this  power  but  that  absolute,  arbitrary  dominion 
over  all  things  and  persons,  which  constitutes 
the  very  essence  of  despotism  ?  Now,  whatever 
power  these  Judges  may  legitimately  exercise, 
is  derived  from  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  That  Government  is  one  of  limited  and 
delegated  powers.  The  authority  of  its  judi 
cial,  and  all  other  departments,  is  defined  by 
specific  metes  and  bounds ;  and  that  there  may 
be  no  mistaking  these  limits,  they  are  written 
down  in  what  is  called  the  Constitution  ;  and  to 
make  assurance  doubly  sure,  the  same  instru 
ment  declares  that  all  powers  not  comprehended 


Congress  under  which  the  conviction  was  had 
and  the  sentence  pronounced,  is  incompatible 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
therefore  void. 

But  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  proceeding 
I  am  met  with  a  claim  of  power  on  the  part  of 
the  Federal  Government,  which',  if  well  found 
ed,  is  an  insurmountable  objection  to  any  fur 
ther  inquiry,  but  which,  I  must  add,  strikes  one 
almost  dumb  with  its  audacity.  It  is  insisted 
that,  whenever,  by  a  return  to  its  writ  offiabeas 
corpus,  the  tribunal  of  a  State  is  advised  that  the 
relator  is  detained  in  custody  under  color  of  Fed 
eral  authority,  whether  the  exercise  of  that  au- 


in  fact  restrain  the  power,  and  acts  authorized 
and  acts  prohibited  are  to  be  taken  as  of  equal 
obligation.  Now  it  is  plain  beyond  all  argu 
ment  that  any  adjudication  of  a  Federal  Judge 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  is  void,  or  if  not 
void,  that  such  Judge  may,  by  his  own  decision, 
alter  the  Constitution.  From  one  or  the  other 
of  these  alternatives  there  is  no  escape.  It  is 
either  an  absolute  nullity  to  be  everywhere 
treated  as  void,  or  else  instead  of  a  republican 
government  exercising  only  specially  delegated 
powers,  we  have  one  whose  sway  is  bounded 
only  by  its  own  will,  and  have  vainly  attempted 
to  limit  a  power  which,  in  its  very  nature,  is 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


197 


illimitable.  Again  I  ask,  then,  does  a  judgment 
of  a  court  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  and 
therefore  void,  notwithstanding  its  invalidity, 
bind  all  persons  and  things  within  its  appar 
ent  scope  ?  To  ask  that  question  is  to  answer 
it.  In  this  case  the  judicial  action  of  this 
court  is  invoked  to  liberate  these  applicants. 
Upon  the  one  hand  the  Constitution  which  you 
are  sworn  to  support,  prohibits  these  men  from 
being  imprisoned  for  the  cause  alleged.  While 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Federal  Judge  in  Cleve 
land  says  they  shall  be  imprisoned.  Which  of 
these  two  is  to  command  the  obedience  of  the 
Court?  Is  the  Constitution  superior  to  the 
ruling  of  that  Judge,  where  the  two  conflict,  or 
is  the  ipse  dixit  of  that  Judge  to  override  the  Con 
stitution?  That  is  the  simple  question.  If  the 
latter  is  to  control,  then  an  act  which,  upon  the 
very  theory  of  the  government,  is  entirely  void, 
is  yet  in  practice^  completely  obligatory,  an  act 
which  the  Constitution  expressly  forbids  to  be 
done  is,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition,  en 
tirely  effectual.  To  what  purpose,  then,  does 
the  Constitution  itself  declare  that  it  is  obliga 
tory  upon  you  as  judges,  and  why  require  you 
to  swear  to  support  it,  if,  at  the  same  time,  you 
are  obliged  to  violate  it  at  the  will  of  any  Fed 
eral  Judge  ? 

But  then  it  is  said  that  the  courts  of  the  United 
States  are  supreme  within  their  sphere ;  all  agree 
to  that ;  but  what  then  ?  So  also  are  the  State 
Courts  supreme  within  their  sphere ;  and  the 
same  argument  which  proves  that  the  Federal 
Courts  have  a  right  to  determine  the  extent  of 
their  jurisdiction  and  impose  that  determina 
tion  on  State  Courts,  proves  equally  that  the 
State  Courts  have  also  the  right  to  determine  the 
extent  of  their  jurisdiction  and  conclude  the 
Federal  Courts  by  that  determination.  But  the 
question  here  is  not  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
Federal  Government  within  its  sphere,  but 
whether  it  is  supreme  beyond  it ;  for  the  propo 
sition  implies  that  the  adjudication  in  the  case 
supposed,  was  an  usurpation  of  power.  And, 
may  it  please  your  Honors,  the  dogma  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Federal  Courts  within  their 
sphere,  and  their  utter  impotence  beyond  it,  sug 
gests  the  true  rule ;  for  it  is  only  the  statement, 
in  another  form,  of  the  maxim  that  the  judgment 
of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  is  every 
where  conclusive,  save  on  proceedings  directly 
instituted  to  review  it ;  while  the  judgment  of  a 
court  which  has  not  jurisdiction,  is,  m  law,  no 
judgment  at  all.  By  competent  jurisdiction  is 
meant,  that  the  court  has  constitutional  and  legal 
capacity  to  determine  the  subject-matter  of  the 
litigation,  and  that  the  parties  interested  in  that 
subject-matter,  and  whose  rights  therein  are  to 
be  determined,  have  been  properly  brought  be 
fore  it.  When  these  two  conditions  exist,  it  has 
jurisdiction.  The  right  to  adjudicate  the  case  is 
vested  in  the  court;  and,  whether  that  right  is 
exercised  ^  regularly  or  irregularly,  erroneously 
or  otherwise,  its  judgment  binds  all  persons  and 
things  which  fall  within  its  legitimate  scope. 


But  this  immunity  from  collateral  question  de 
pends  solely  upon  the  presence  of  these  two 
conditions,  for  if  it  has  not  the  constitutional 
capacity  to  hear  the  cause,  or  if  the  party  sought 
to  be  affected  has  not  been  duly  brought  into 
court,  then  its  judgment  concludes  notning.  If 
it  has  this  jurisdiction,  its  proceedings  import 
absolute  verity ;  if  it  has  not,  its  judgment  is  an 
absolute  nullity.  When,  therefore,  in  any  pro 
ceeding  in  any  Court,  the  judgment  of  another 
tribunal,  whether  as  between  the  same  parties 
or  otherwise,  is  interposed,  either  to  establish 
or  defeat  some  right  then  in  litigation,  the  very 
first  inquiry  always  is:  Had  the  tribunal,  ren 
dering  this  judgment,  jurisdiction  ?  If  it  had, 
it  concludes  in  the  then  litigation  of  all  rights 
which  were  within  its  scope ;  if  it  had  not,  it 
is  treated  as  mere  waste  paper,  and  the  rights 
which  it  sought  to  adjudicate  still  remain  open 
for  discussion  and  judgment.  No  judgments, 
civil  or  criminal,  are  exempt  from  this  rule.  It 
is  of  absolutely  universal  application ;  from 
the  court  of  a  justice  of  the  peace  up  to  the 
highest  tribunals.  Each  one,  when  called  on 
to  recognize  the  judgment  of  another  power, 
whether  state  or  national,  home  or  foreign, 
first  inquires  and  first  determines  whether  it 
had  jurisdiction.  Nor  until  now,  and  in  these 
cases  under  the  fugitive  act,  has  it  ever  been 
hinted,  that  any  court  was  concluded  from 
making  this  inquiry  because  the  other  tribu 
nal  which  rendered  the  judgment  asserted 
itself  to  have  competent  jurisdiction.  Now  if 
the  learned  counsel  who  represents  the  Fed 
eral  Government  (Col.  Swayne),  should  bring 
his  action  against  me  in  a  State  Court,  upon 
a  judgment  which  he  claimed  to  have  re 
covered  against  me  in  the  Circuit  Court  of 
the  United  States,  and  upon  the  production  of 
the  record  of  that  Court  it  should  appear  affirm 
atively,  either  that  in  that  Court  he  had  sued 
me  to  recover  a  penalty  given  only  by  a  statute 
of  this  State ;  or  that  —  the  subject-matter  being 
within  its  jurisdiction — I  had  never  been  served 
with  processor  otherwise  brought  into  Court  — 
does  any  lawyer  within  the  sound  of  my  voice, 
does  even  the  learned  counsel  himself,  suppose 
that  the  State  Court  would  hold  itself  or  me 
concluded  by  that  judgment?  Surely  not. 
Every  tyro  in  the  law  knows  better.  In  the  one 
case  the  judgment  would  be  void  for  want  of 
constitutional  capacity  to  adjudge  any  such 
penalty;  in  the  other  for  want  of  jurisdiction 
over  the  person  of  myself.  Nobody  doubts  that. 
But,  may  it  please  your  Honors,  if  in  an  action 
touching  the  rights  of  property,  you  may  in  a 
State  Court  impeach  the  judgment  of  a  Federal 
Court  for  the  want  of  jurisdiction,  a  fortiori, 
may  you  do  the  same  thing  in  every  proceeding 
which  concerns  the  rights  of  personal  freedom. 
If  in  an  action  pending  before  it,  a  State 
Court  may  inquire  whether  a  Federal  Court 
had  power  to  dispose  of  an  ox  or  an  ass,  how 
much  more  upon  this  great  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus,  may  it  not  inquire  whether  that  same  court 


198 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


has  power  to  dispose  of  the  liberty  of  the  citi 
zen  V  When,  therefore,  in  response  to  Bush- 
neiPs  challenge,  made  in  the  prescribed  legal 
mode,  —  Marshal  Johnson  says  he  restrains  him 
of  his  liberty  under  a  sentence  pronounced  by 
Hirain  V.  Willson,  Judge  of  the  District  Court, 
it  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  say  either  generally 
that  Mr.  Willson  was  no  judge  at  all,  or  that  his 
judicial  power  did  not  extend  to  the  case  in 
which  Bushnell  was  sentenced.  For  if,  as  to  the 
particular  case  he  had  no  power  to  render  judg 
ment,  it  is  precisely  the  same  as  if  he  were  not 
judge  at  all.  Now  suppose  he  had  undertaken 
to  try  Bushnell  without  a  jury,  or  the  offence 
charged  was  that  of  selling  game  out  of  season, 
are  we  to  be  told  that  simply  because  in  doing 
this  the  Judge  claimed  to  act  under  Federal 
authority  —  we  are  bound  to  shut  our  eyes  to 
this  usurpation  of  power ;  that  the  sentence  is 
an  estoppel  concluding  all  inquiry  save  on  a  writ 
of  error  to  review  it  ?  Looking,  then,  only  at 
the  general  principle  applied  daily  to  the  most 
solemn  adjudications  of  every  tribunal,  this 
Court  must  inquire  and  determine  for  itself 
whether  Judge  Willson  had  jurisdiction  to  award 
the  judgment  under  which  these  two  citizens 
are  held  in  custody. 

But  again  ;  the  right  of  the  State  to  inquire 
into  the  validity  of  any  authority  imposing  re 
straint  upon  its  citizens  as  against  every  power, 
be  it  State,  national,  or  foreign,  stands  on  an 
even  firmer  basis,  for  it  results  from  the  very 
nature  of  sovereignty  itself.  The  first  and  chief 
characteristic  of  all  sovereignty  is  its  right  to 
the  allegiance  and  service  of  its  citizens ;  a  right 
fundamental  to  all  other  rights  of  a  State,  for  on 
this  its  very  existence  in  war  or  peace  continu 
ally  depends.  Correlative  to,  or  rather  compre 
hended  in  this  right,  is  the  power  to  remove  any 
unlawful  restraint  enforced  against  its  citizens, 
to  the  twofold  end  that  the  State  may  not  be 
improperly  deprived  of  his  services,  and  that  it 
may  efficiently  discharge  that  supreme  and  im 
prescriptible  duty  of  protection,  which,  as  a  re 
turn  for  his  allegiance  every  State  owes  to  its 
citizens.  On  these  two  principles,  allegiance  to 
the  State,  protection  to  the  citizen,  rests  not  mere 
ly  all  sovereignty,  but  the  very  social  compact 
itself.  Any  nation  which  has  wholly  surren 
dered  the  allegiance  of  its  citizens  or  its  cor 
relative  incidental  right  to  protect  them  while 
within  its  territorial  limits,  has  in  that  very  act 
abnegated  every  attribute  of  sovereignty  and 
become  the  mere  local  dependency  of  the  power 
to  which  that  allegiance  and  right  has  been  sur 
rendered.  But  Ohio,  thank  God,  is  still  a  sov 
ereign  State,  and  has  therefore  never  yielded 
this  right,  as  she  never  could  yield  it,  and  still 
preserve  her  sovereignty,  to  the  Federal,  or  any 
other  government.  In  all  the  Constitution,  I 
find  no  such  grant.  I  find  nothing  prohibiting 
its  continued  residence  with  the  States.  In  a 
few  carefully  guarded,  and  specifically  enumer 
ated  instances,  the  State  has  delegated  to  the 
Federal  Government  power  to  punish ;  and  has 


renounced  the  right  to  prevent  that  punishment ; 
but  in  even  these  instances,  she  has  retained 
the  power  to  inquire  whether  this  limited 
authority  for  punishing  is  kept  within  its  narrow 
bounds.  In  all  else,  save  these  special  instances, 
the  State  reserved  the  power  to  prevent  all  pun 
ishment  not  imposed  by  itself;  and  in  all  cases, 
including  even  these,  she  reserved  the  right  to 
inquire  into  the  nature  of  every  authority  which 
sought  to  deprive  any  citizen  of  his  liberty. 
For  it  will  not  be  questioned  that  the  general 
guardianship  of  the  citizen  is  confided,  not  to 
the  Federal  Government,  but  to  the  State  alone. 
It  follows  that  the  power  to  which  this  guardian 
ship  is  intrusted,  must,  as  an  indispensable  corv- 
dition  of  its  exercise,  have  the  right  to  inquire 
into  and  determine  for  itself  the  validity  of  any 
authority  which  assumes  within  its  limits  to  de 
prive  the  citizen  of  that  natural  right  of  free 
dom,  for  the  security  of  which  it  has  pledged  its 
most  solemn  faith.  Chief,  and  most  efficient  of 
all  the  instrumentalities  by  which  the  State  as 
serts  its  sovereignty,  and  exercises  this  duty  of 
protection,  is  the  great  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
universally  called  the  great  bulwark  of  freedom, 
which  has  come  down  to  us  through  many  ages, 
and  which,  issuing  always  in  the  name  of  the 
sovereign,  was  specially  designed  to  inquire  by 
what  authority  any  person  wras  restrained  of  his 
liberty,  and  to  deliver  from  all  unlawful  impris 
onment.  This  was  the  sole  office  of  the  writ 
when  the  Constitution  was  framed,  and  when 
its  makers  —  as  if  apprehensive  that  possibly 
authority  to  suspend  it  might  be  inferred  from 
some  grant  of  power  to  the  Federal  Government 
—  commandingly  declared  that  its  privileges 
should  never  be  suspended  except  in  cases  of 
rebellion  or  invasion.  This  emphatic  prohibi 
tion  speaks  alike  to  every  department  of  that 
Government  — judicial  as  well  as  legislative  and 
executive.  Not  only  this,  but  the  Constitution 
of  this  State  has  thrown  around  this  writ  in  like 
terms  the  same  absolute  immunity. 

Since,  then,  the  power  to  inquire  into  all  im 
prisonments  belonged  originally  and  necessarily 
to  the  States ;  since  it  has  never  been  and 
never  could  be  surrendered ;  since  the  consti 
tutions,  State  and  Federal,  alike  declare  that  it 
shah1  not  be  suspended,  I  submit  to  your  Honors 
that  there  is  no  power  in  either  Government  to 
abridge  the  right  of  the  State  to  inquire  into 
the  validity  of  every  authority,  Federal,  State, 
or  Foreign,  which  assumes  to  restrain  its  citi 
zens. 

Again,  if  it  please  your  Honors,  the  right  of 
the  States  to  inquire  into  the  validity  of  every 
imprisonment  of  persons  held  under  Federal 
authority  has  been  constantly  asserted  and  ex 
ercised  by  every  State  since  the  organization  of 
the  Government.  Persons  arrested  for  alleged 
offences  against  the  United  States  have  been 
frequently  discharged,  and  you  can  hardly 
open  a  New  York  paper  without  finding  cases 
where  the  State  Courts  have  discharged  sol 
diers  or  mariners,  held  in  custody  by  virtue  of 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


199 


an  enlistment  under  Federal  laws.  Metzger, 
though  arrested  under  a  warrant  of  extradi 
tion,  issued  by  the  President  in  supposed  con 
formity  with  treaty  stipulations,  and  though  a 
Judge  of  the  Federal  Courts  (Betts)  had  held 
the  warrant  to  be  valid,  was  discharged  by  the 
State  Courts  of  New  York ;  and  still  more  re 
cently  this  Court,  in  the  case  of  Collier,  has 
affirmed  its  undoubted  power  to  discharge  per 
sons  held  under  color  of  Federal  authority. 

The  right,  then,  of  the  State  to  issue  this 
writ,  stands  on  grounds  as  firm  as  the  earth 
itself.  When  it  goes  forth,  let  all  men  know 
that  it  is  the  State,  exercising  the  highest  of  all 
its  attributes,  which  sends  out  its  great  preroga 
tive  writ,  —  inquiring  into  the  condition  and 
restraint  of  its  citizens,  that  no  man  to  whom  it 
is  directed,  be  he  Marshal  or  Chief  Justice, 
King,  Kaiser,  or  President,  may  omit  to  give 
heed  to  its  peremptory  behest,  that  no  power 
on  earth  can  absolve  him  from  obedience  to  it, 
or  shield  him  from  the  consequences  of  disobe 
dience. 

Taking  it,  then,  as  established  that  your 
Honors  —  exercising  the  SUPREME  JUDICIAL 
POWER  of  the  State,  have  the  right  to  inquire 
into  and  determine  the  validity  of  every  pre 
text  under  which  the  citizen  is  held  in  cus 
tody —  I  next  proceed  to  ascertain  the  nature 
and  authority  of  that  adjudication  upon  which 
the  sheriff  of  Cuyahoga  county  assumes  to 
restrain  these  two  citizens  of  their  freedom. 

Bushnell's  conviction  rests  upon  an  indict 
ment  containing  a  single  count,  which,  in  sub 
stance,  charges  him  with  obstructing  the  master 
of  the  alleged  fugitive,  without  any  process  or 
color  of  process  in  the  exercise  of  the  right 
alleged  to  belong  to  the  master  by  the  Federal 
Constitution,  of  seizing  his  runaway  slave 
wherever  he  may  find  him,  and  taking  him 
back  by  force  to  the  State  from  which  he 
escaped.  Langston's  conviction  rests  on  an 
indictment  containing  two  counts,  the  first  of 
which  is  precisely  similar  to  the  single  count 
in  Bushnell's  indictment ;  while  the  second 
charges,  in  substance,  that  Langston  had  ob 
structed  a  Deputy-Marshal  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  execution  of  a  Commissioner's 
warrant,  issued  to  him  and  held  by  him,  com 
manding  the  arrest  of  John,  an  alleged  fugitive 
from  service. 

These  indictments  are  each  founded  on  the 
Act  of  Congress  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act ;  the  provisions  of  which,  it  is  therefore 
necessary  now  briefly  to  examine. 

[Mr.  Wolcott  here  stated  the  effect  of  each  of 
the  sections  of  the  act,  which  being  generally 
known,  are  here  omitted,  and  then  proceeded.] 

From  this  analysis  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Act,  as  it  has  been  construed  by  the  decisions 
hereafter  to  be  adverted  to,  it  results  that  any 
man  may  come  into  one  of  the  free  States,  and 
upon  his  mere  claim  that  one  of  its  apparently 
undoubted  citizens,  resident  here  during  rnanf 
years,  is  his  slave,  or  owes  him  service  or  labor, 


drag  that  citizen  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State 
of  his  residence,  and  that  no  one  may  interfere 
with  this  forcible  capture,  even  to  ascertain  the 
validity  of  the  claim  so  made,  except  on  pain 
of  fine  and  imprisonment,  if  it  shall  ultimately 
turn  out  that  the  captured  citizen,  though  born 
in  a  free  State,  and  originally  free,  was  once 
arrested  in  a  slave  State  upon  suspicion  of  be 
ing  a  slave,  and  finally,  no  claimant  appearing 
for  him,  was  sold  into  perpetual  slavery  to  pay 
the  costs  of  that  very  arrest  and  detention. 
Bad  as  this  is,  it  is  not  all.  This  Act  has 
a  depth  of  atrocity  which  no  plummet  shall 
ever  sound.  It  provides  a  safer  remedy  for 
the  man-stealer.  If  he  do  not  choose  to  risk 
the  private  caption,  he  may  obtain  a  warrant 
of  arrest  from  a  Federal  Commissioner,  seize 
the  alleged  fugitive,  take  him  before  the  Com 
missioner,  who  is  to  hear  the  case  in  a  summary 
manner,  on  such  ex  parte  affidavits  or  deposi 
tions  as  may  be  produced,  and  if  these  satisfy 
him  of  the  existence  of  the  claim  made  against 
the  fugitive,  he  is  to  issue  his  certificate  thereof, 
which  is  made  conclusive  evidence  of  the  claim 
ant's  right  to  remove,  and  confers  upon  him 
absolute  authority  to  make  that  removal ;  and 
upon  his  mere  oath  that  he  fears  a  rescue,  the 
Marshal  himself  is  to  return  the  alleged  fugitive, 
and  may,  if  needful  to  accomplish  that  end,  call 
to  his  aid  the  whole  naval  and  military  force  of 
the  United  States.  But  even  this  is  not  the 
worst.  The  intending  kidnapper  may  go  be 
fore  some  Judge  of  the  most  distant  State,  and 
upon  ex  parte  evidence,  perhaps  his  own  alone, 
obtain  a  record  reciting  the  fact  of  some  alleged 
slave's  escape  —  a  record  which  shall  absolutely 
foreclose  the  questions  of  slavery  and  of  escape 
therefrom,  —  "  with  a  general  description,  of 
such  convenient  certainty  as  maybe,"  of  the  al 
leged  fugitive,  and,  under  it,  seize  any  man 
who  corresponds  to  this  description,  drag  him 
before  any  Circuit  Judge  of  that  circuit,  though 
resident  in  another  State,  and  then  upon  mere 
proof  of  the  captive's  identity  with  this  "  gen 
eral  description  of  convenient  certainty,"  obtain 
a  warrant  for  the  removal  of  the  free  citizen  to 
the  State  from  which  the  ex  parte  record  asserts 
he  escaped  (to  be  enforced  with  the  whole 
power  of  the  Federal  Government),  and  there 
retain  him  in  perpetual  bondage.  Not  only 
may  no  man,  even  by  a  resort  to  judicial  pro 
cess,  attempt  to  inquire  into  the  lawfulness  of 
'the  taking,  but  no  tribunal,  State  or  Federal, 
may,  either  by  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  or 
otherwise,  molest  the  claimant  in  the  exercise 
of  this  power,  for  the  prohibition  of  the  eighth 
section  is  without  limitation,  and  includes  all 
officers  and  courts,  State  and  Federal.  Indeed, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  its 
recent  opinion  in  the  Booth  case,  has  declared 
that  the  allowance  of  the  writ  in  such  a  case 
would  be  an  act  of  "  lawless  violence."  The 
citizen  is  thus  not  only  without  the  means  of 
protecting  himself,  but  any  endeavor  to  detain 
him  long  enough  to  ascertain  the  validity  of  his 


200 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


caption,  is  made  a  criminal  act.  This  enact 
ment,  under  pretence  of  preventing  the  escape 
of  bondmen,  strikes  down  every  safeguard  of 
the  liberty  of  the  citizen.  Does  the  citizen 
hold  his  liberty  by  this  frail  tenure  ?  Yes !  if 
your  Honors  do  not  here  and  now  interpose. 
Other  refuge  on  all  this  earth,  there  is  none. 
You  or  I,  or  the  Governor  who  sits  here,  or 
our  Senator  in  Congress  (Mr.  Pugh),  who  also 
sits  here,  or  any  other  citizen,  may,  at  any  mo 
ment,  be  seized  and  rapt  away  to  another  State, 
under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  for  all  alike 
are  subject  to  its  operation.  Does  any  say  that 
the  supposition  is  improbable  ?  I  reply,  first, 
No.  Under  its  provisions,  freemen  have  not 
unfrequently  been  adjudged  to  be  slaves,  and 
surrendered  to  that  condition.  Second,  that 
since  the  Act  itself,  by  its  very  terms,  authorizes 
seizures  in  the  very  instances  just  mentioned, 

"  to  test  its 
is 


this 

very  fate  does  not  befall  one  of  your  Honors  or 
myself,  it  is  not  because  of  any  exception  or 
qualification  in  the  Act  itself,  excluding  its  appli 
cation  to  you,  or  me,  or  any  free  citizen,  but 
because  no  scoundrel  has  either  the  baseness 
or  the  audacity  to  attempt  its  application,  so 
that  we  enjoy  our  exemption  from  its  operation 
against  us,  not  because  we  are  freemen ;  not  be 
cause  the  law  protects  us  any  more  than  it  does 
the  negro  against  this  arbitrary  seizure ;  but 
merely  for  the  reason  that  no  one  sees  fit,  from 
whatever  motive,  to  assert  dominion  over  us. 

But  this  awful  power  is  one  not  exercised 
by  this  State  under  its  own  control  as  against 
its  own  citizens,  for  the  State  had  disabled  it 
self  from  that ;  but  authority  to  assert  it  within 
the  territorial  limits  of  this  State  is  claimed  by 
another  distinct  and  independent  government. 
The  asserters  of  this  power,  therefore,  maintain 
not  merely  that  the  liberty  of  the  citizen  is  ab 
solutely  at  the  control  of  every  villain  who  may, 
by  ex  parte  and  perjured  evidence,  swear  away 
his  freedom,  in  a  proceeding  of  which  he  has 
no  notice,  in  which  he  has  no  voice,  which  he 
cannot  impeach,  but  that  the  State  to  which  the 
citizen  owes  allegiance,  and  to  whom  it  owes 
the  correlative  duty  of  protection,  has  not  sim 
ply,  of  its  own  voluntary  choice,  submitted  to 
the  exercise  of  this  power  within  its  limits,  but 
that  it  has  disabled  both  itself  and  the  govern 
ment  to  whom  it  is  said  to  have  delegated  this 
absolute  dominion,  from  any  right  to  inquire 
into  the  propriety  of  its  exercise  in  any  given 
instance,  and  has  also  delegated  authority  to 
the  government  assuming  tins  power  to  punish 
as  criminal  any  one  who  shall  invoke  the  pro 
cess  of  law,  applicable  to  all  other  cases  of  im 
prisonment,  to  inquire  into  that  proceeding. 
For  under  the  recent  ruling  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  the  great  writ  of 
Jiabcas  corpus  itself  is  virtually  declared  to  be 
unconstitutional,  and  your  Honors  for  allowin 
it  —  where  vou  are  advised  that  the  person  is 


detained  under  a  commissioner's  warrant  — 
though  such  allowance  be  made  in  the  plain 
and  imperative  discharge  of  your  judicial  func 
tions  —  for  the  same  authority  which  made  you 
judges  absolutely  requires  this  writ  at  your 
hands  —  are  liable  for  this  judicial  act  to  fine 
and  imprisonment.  These  and  not  less  than 
these  are  the  proportions  of  the  doctrine  on 
which  the  claim  of  the  Federal  Government  is 
now  urged. 

This  doctrine  it  is  my  duty,  as  most  assuredly 
it  is  my  pleasure,  to  resist  here  and  now,  with 
all  my  mind  and  will  and  strength.  In  the 
name  of  the  STATE,  the  sovereignty  of  which 
is  thus  assailed  in  its  most  vital  part ;  on  behalf 
of  its  citizens,  all  of  whose  liberties  are  thus  im 
perilled,  I  am  here  to  maintain  that  the  power 
now  claimed  on  behalf  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  has  no  existence,  and  that  its  exercise  un 
der  color  of  the  authority  of  that  Government 
is  a  gross  usurpation  of  the  powers  retained  by 
the  States,  and  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  natu 
ral  and  guaranteed  rights  of  the  citizen. 

The  grounds  upon  which  the  claim  of  this 
power  in  the  Federal  Government  is  founded, 
are  twofold,  namely,  first,  that  the  States  have 
in  and  by  the  Constitution  delegated  to  the 
master  of  every  escaping  slave,  authority  to 
pursue  him  in  any  State  to  which  he  may  flee, 
and  there  without  process  and  by  force  seize 
him,  again  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of 
slavery,  and  retake  him  to  the  domicil  of  the 
master ;  and  second,  that  the  States  have  also 
by  the  same  Constitution,  delegated  to  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  power  to  legislate  in 
aid  of  this  right  of  reclaiming  fugitive  slaves. 

Now  if  this  right  of  recaption  be  not  given 
by  the  Constitution  itself  to  the  master  ;  and  if 
this  power  to  legislate  for  the  reclamation  of 
fugitive  slaves  be  not  conferred  on  the  Con 
gress;  very  obviously  the  act  under  which 
Bushnell  and  Langston  have  been  convicted, 
the  one  of  obstructing  this  right,  the  other  not 
only  of  that  but  of  resisting  process  issued 
under  legislative  provision  in  aid  of  that  right, 
is  unconstitutional  and  void.  Being  void,  it 
could  confer  no  jurisdiction  upon  the  District 
Court,  and  the  sentence  against  the  relators 
under  which  they  are  now  detained  in  custody, 
would  be  a  nullity. 

The  great  question,  then,  may  it  please  your 
Honors,  is :  Docs  the  Constitution  delegate  to 
the  master  this  right  of  recaption,  and  to  the 
Congress  this  power  to  legislate  in  aid  or  for  the 
enforcement  of  this  right  ?  To  determine  this 
it  is  necessary  to  examine  the  provisions  of  that 
instrument.  But  before  entering  directly  into 
this  examination  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  advert 
to  certain  established  principles  in  the  light  of 
which  this  examination  must  be  conducted. 

1.  In  discussing  the  powers  of  the  General 
Government  it  must  be  always  borne  in  mind 
that  the  Constitution  was  not  formed  by  a 
people  who  were  then  living  without  a  Govern 
ment,  but  by  the  people  of  several  distinct  and 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


201 


independent  States,  each  of  which  had  a  full 
and  thoroughly  organized  government  in  opera 
tion  therein,  each  having  full  power  to  declare 
war,  make  peace,  contract  alliances,  establish 
commerce,  and  do  every  other  act  which  free 
and  independent  States  may  of  right  do.  These 
States,  independent  in  themselves,  had  entered 
into  a  confederation  under  which  they  had 
formed  a  union  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
their  independence,  then  the  subject  of  perilous 
and  deadly  struggle.  After  this  was  achieved, 
and  the  outward  "pressure  of  a  common  danger 
which  had  largely  contributed  to  preserve  har 
mony  of  relations  was  removed,  the  articles  of 
confederation  were  found  wholly  inadequate  for 
their  continued  government  as  a  nation.  Under 
the  influence  of  this  reason,  these  independent 
States  again  resolved  to  attempt  the  formation 
of  a  more  perfect  union,  and  accordingly  sent 
delegates  to  a  convention  assembled  for  the  pur 
pose  of  framing  a  Constitution  which  should 
secure  that  end.  Meeting  thus  as  sovereigns, 
this  object  could  be  accomplished  in  no  other 
mode  than  the  surrender  by  each  of  some  por 
tion  of  the  power  which  had  hitherto  pertained 
to  it  in  virtue  of  this  sovereignty,  while  still  re 
taining  all  those  attributes  not  necessary  to  the 
efficiency  of  the  common  government  it  was 
designed  to  found.  The  Convention  thus  assem 
bled,  did,  in  process  of  time,  agree  upon  a  con 
stitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  several  distinct 
sovereignties  for  their  ratification ;  and  these 
sovereignties  did,  after  prolonged  and  critical 
examination  of  its  provisions,  and  with  more  or 
less  reluctance  in  each  instance,  yield  its  final 
assent  to  the  new  frame  of  government  created 
by  that  Constitution.  This  Government,  there 
fore,  consists  simply  of  powers  theretofore  per 
taining  to  the  States,  but  delegated  by  them  to 
the  new  governments.  But,  then,  it  was  neces 
sary  to  do  something  more  than  simply  confer 
active  powers  upon  the  new  Government. 
Powers  not  at  all  necessary  to  that  would  still 
remain  with  the  States  —  the  exercise  of  which 
might  violate  the  fundamental  principles  of  jus 
tice  and  freedom,  or  be  inconsistent  with  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  given  to  the  General 
Government  —  and  this  condition  would  be  met 
by  simply  disabling  the  States  from  the  exercise 
of  these  powers.  But  then  there  would  still 
remain  a  class  of  subjects,  which,  not  being  of 
national  concern,  called  for  the  exercise  of  no 
national  power,  and  therefore  required  the  del 
egation  of  none  to  the  General  Government; 
and  which,  on  the  other  hand,  required  more  or 
less  of  regulation  by  the  respective  States  them 
selves,  so  that  they  could  not  properly  or  safely 
renounce  their  power  over  them;  and  yet 
which  at  the  same  time  so  far  concerned  the 
maintenance  of  harmonious  relations  between 
the  States,  or  the  people  thereof,  as  to  render 
some  common  understanding  necessary  con 
cerning  the  extent  to  which  each  should  exercise 
its  undelegated  and  unrenounced  powers  upon 
these  subjects  of  common  interest.  This  exi- 

26 


gency  would  be  fully  provided  for  by  a  simple 
agreement  between  the  States  not  to  press  the 
exercise  of  their  reserved  powers  upon  the  sub 
jects  indicated,  beyond  a  certain  defined  limit. 
'From  the  very  necessity  of  things,  then,  we 
might,  a  priori,  have  determined  that  the  Con 
stitution  would  consist,  first,  of  grants  of  power 
to  the  Government  created  by  its  provisions; 
second,  of  prohibitions  upon  powers  not  dele 
gated  ;  and  third,  clauses  of  compact,  by  which 
.each  State  covenants  with  the  other,  so  to  exer 
cise  or  forbear  the  exercise  of  powers,  neither 
delegated  nor  prohibited,  and,  therefore,  still  re 
tained,  as  not  to  affect,  in  certain  defined  ways, 
subjects  which,  though  not  of  national  concern, 
were  yet  of  importance  as  affecting  the  exterior 
relations  of  the  States  to  each  other.  All  of 
the  constitutional  provisions  do  accordingly 
range  themselves  under  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  three  great  and  natural  divisions.  Now, 
very  evidently,  no  one  of  the  constitutional 
provisions  operates  to  give  any  power  to  the 
Government,  unless  it  range  itself  under  the 
head  of  grants,  so  that  no  power  as  to  any  given 
subject  is  to  be  imputed  to  the  Government 
simply  because  that  subject  has  been  made  a 
matter  of  regulation,  for  that  regulation  may 
consist  either  of  a  total  prohibition  of  power  to 
the  States  over  it,  or  of  a  simple  compact  be 
tween  the  States  to  do,  or  omit  to  do  some  par 
ticular  thing,  the  execution  of  which  rests  with 
the  States  alone.  But  again,  the  government 
created  by  this  constitution  consists  not  merely 
of  delegated  and  limited  powers.  The  States, 
as  if  to  guard  against  the  known  tendency  of 
all  power  to  overpass  prescribed  limits,  have 
made  no  general  grants  and  then  undertaken 
to  hedge  it  in  by  metes  and  bounds,  but  has 
specifically  expressed  the  subjects  and  objects 
to  which  the  power  of  that  government  should 
extend.  Thus,  whenever  it  was  designed  to 
confer  power  over  any  subject,  that  subject  has 
been  selected,  and  calling  it  by  its  proper  and 
ordinary  name,  the  States  said,  "  The  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  borrow  money,  declare  war, 
to  establish  post-offices,  to  punish  piracy  on  the 
high  seas,  etc."  The  Federal  Government  is, 
therefore,  one  of  enumerated  as  well  as  limited 
and  delegated  powers. 

Still  again,  the  powers  granted,  being  granted 
by  independent  sovereignties,  it  not  only  fol 
lows  as  the  result  of  all  just  reasoning  that  all 
powers  not  granted  are  withheld,  but  the  Con 
stitution,  not  content  to  rest  upon  a  mere  logical 
result,  however  irresistible,  has  itself  declared 
that,  the  "  powers  not  delegated  by  it  to  the 
United  States,  or  prohibited  to  the  States,  are 
reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people." 

From  this  undeniably  correct  view  of  the  na 
ture  of  the  Constitution,  it  follows,  First,  that 
as  the  Government  is  one  of  limited  and  enu 
merated  powers,  and  as  every  grant  is  in  dero 
gation  of  State  sovereignty,  it  has  no  authority 
save  such  as  is  expressly  granted,  or  as  is  mere- 


202 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


ly  subsidiary  to  the  execution  of  the  expressly 
granted  powers ;  or,  in  other  words,  no  substan 
tive,  independent  power,  the  exercise  of  which 
is  one  of  the  ends  of  government,  can  be  im 
plied.  Such  a  power  has  no  existence,  save  as 
it  is  founded  in  express  grant.  This  rule  nec 
essarily  results  from  the  Constitution,  and  with  a 
single  exception,  hereafter  to  be  noticed,  has 
been  uniformly  sanctioned  and  acted  upon  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

2.  That  as  to  all  powers  not  thus  expressly 
delegated  to  the  United  States,  or  expressly 
prohibited  to  the  States,  or  the  exercise  of 
which  has  not  been  regulated  by  any  of  the 
clauses  of  compact,  each  State  has  the  complete, 
exclusive,  unlimited,  and  undeniable  jurisdic 
tion  and  power  over  all  persons  and  things  with 
in  its  limits,  to  the  same  supreme  extent  which 
has  ever  pertained  to  any  nation  in  any  age. 
As  to  these  powers,  the  States  stand  to  each 
other  and  to  the  Federal  Government  as  abso 
lutely  foreign  nations. 

With  these  two  general  principles,  applicable 
alike  to  all  discussions  of  the  powers  of  the 
Federal  Government,  kept  constantly  in  view, 
there  still  remain  two  other  established  rules  of 
special  application  to  the  particular  subject  now 
under  discussion ;  which  subject,  be  it  remem 
bered,  is  the  power  of  the  master  to  recapture 
by  force  in  the  free  States  his  escaping  slave, 
and  of  Congress  to  legislate  in  aid  of  this  right, 
or,  more  generally  speaking,  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment  to  protect  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave  within  the  limits  of  those  States  which  for 
bid  its  existence. 

"  The  state  of  slavery,"  said  Lord  Mansfield, 
pronouncing  judgment  in  the  great  case  of 
Somerset,  "  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  is  incapa 
ble  of  being  introduced  on  any  reasons,  moral 
or  political,  but  only  by  positive  law. .  It  is  so 
odious,  that  nothing  can  be  suffered  to  support 
it  but  positive  law;"  and  every  court  of  every 
State,  slave  and  free,  has  echoed  and  reechoed 
these  immortal  words !  And  when  one  pauses  a 
moment  to  reflect  on  it,  no  wonder  that  even 
the  slaveholder  himself  acquiesces  in  this  state 
ment  of  the  sole  condition  upon  which  it  can 
found  its  existence.  Looking  at  its  bad  emi 
nence,  well  may  the  jurist,  no  less  than  the  mor 
alist  and  statesman,  declare  that  this  wrong  can 
have  no  existence  in  any  system  of  government 
except  by  positive  and  express  sanction.  It  can 
found  itself  on  no  inference,  however  strong ;  it 
can  derive  no  support  from  phrases  of  ambigu 
ous  meaning  ;  but  he  who  claims  its  existence 
or  recognition  in  any  form,  however  qualified, 
must  be  able  to  show  some  clear  affirmative  en 
actment,  which  will  admit  of  no  other  sense  or 
interpretation. 

But  a  second  principle  of  the  common  law, 
applying  to  the  judicial  resolution  of  all  ques 
tions  touching  the  personal  rights  of  man,  is 
also  to  be  kept  constantly  in  view.  By  a  rule 
older  than  the  Constitution,  —  older  than  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  —  older  than 


Magna  Charta,  —  older  even  than  the  common 
law  itself,  —  wherever  the  right  of  man  to  his 
liberty  is  the  subject  of  question,  every  doubt  is 
to  be  resolved  in  favor  of  liberty.  Alike  in  the 
bond  of  the  apprentice,  —  in  the  laws  relating 
to  serfdom  and  villanage,  —  in  the  statutes  and 
judicial  proceedings,  which  deprive  a  person  of 
his  liberty  as  the  punishment  of  crime, —  every 
word  is  to  be  constructed  strictly  as  against  the 
power  to  deprive  him  of  freedom.  Even  as 
against  the  acknowledged  criminal  the  law  per 
mits  no  inference  or  intendment  or  presump 
tion,  but  every  thing  is  to  be  construed  in  favor 
of  freedom.  Still  more,  then,  must  this  be  so  m 
a  constitution  framed  by  a  people  who  had  just 
emerged  from  a  seven  years'  war,  to  establish 
the  self-evident  truth,  that  all  men  are  born  free 
and  equal,  and  which  the  Constitution  avowed 
upon  its  very  front  in  words  of  fire,  that  it  was 
ordained  to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  their  pos 
terity.  Now  we  have  these  four  great  rules, 
which  are  to  guide  us  in  discussing  this  question 
of  Constitutional  power,  —  First,  that  the  Gen 
eral  Government  has  no  power  save  that 
which  is  expressly  delegated  by  the  Constitu 
tion.  Second,  that  all  powers,  not  expressly 
delegated,  or  restrained  by  absolute  prohibition 
or  qualified  by  compact,  belong  to  the  States  in 
all  their  original  supremacy.  Third,  that 
slavery  is  of  so  odious  a  nature  that  the  power 
to  recognize  its  existence  can  be  derived  only 
from  an  affirmative,  positive  grant,  permitting 
no  other  interpretation ;  and  lastly,  that  honor 
ed  maxim  which  requires  every  doubtful 
phrase  to  be  construed  in  favor  of  liberty. 
These  four  rules,  all  converging  to  one  result, 
enable  me  to  declare,  and  I  speak  with  the  unit 
ed  authority  which  has  established  these  rules 
—  an  authority  greater  and  more  decisive  than 
can  be  found  to  sustain  any  other  juridical  prop 
osition  —  that  if  the  power  has  not  been  given 
to  the  master  to  recapture  and  resubjugate  his 
slave  in  a  free  State,  and  to  Congress  to  legis 
late  in  aid  of  this  recaption  and  resubjugation ; 
if,  I  say,  this  power  has  not  been  delegated  in 
express  and  affirmative  terms  —  terms  of  the 
most  unequivocal  and  imperative  import — then 
the  power  has  absolutely  no  existence ;  and  this 
cruel  act,  which,  though  aimed  at  one  race, 
strikes  down  all,  is  as  vain  as  it  is  wicked  and 
cruel.  This  leads  me  directly  to  the  one  ques 
tion  to  be  decided:  Has  the  Constitution,  by  an 
express  grant,  vested  in  the  master  power  to 
make  a  raid  into  every  State  in  pursuit  of  a 
runaway  slave,  and  finding  him,  to  drag  him 
back  without  process ;  or  has  it  given  Congress 
power  to  enforce  his  surrender  ?  This  question 
is  to  be  decided,  not  upon  argument,  not  on  the 
weight  of  reasoning  —  for  it  neither  requires  or 
admits  of  reasoning  —  but  simply  upon  inspec 
tion,  and  by  the  use  of  the  eyes.  Does  the  Con 
stitution  say,  in  so  many  words,  Congress  may 
do  this  thing  ?  Let  us  see.  I  look  first  at  the 
eighth  section  of  the  first  article,  which  contains 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


203 


the  general  enumeration  of  powers  granted  to 
Congress,  and  I  do  not  find  it  there ;  nay,  no 
one  "pretends  that  it  is  there.  I  pursue  my 
search  through  the  other  parts  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  reading  it  article  by  article  and  section  by 
section,  but  I  do  not  find  it  there.  In  all  the 
Constitution  the  word  slave  or  slavery  is  not 
there ;  nor  is  there  any  other  equivalent  word 
or  phrase  which  aptly  defines  that  relation,  and 
nothing  else.  Even  those  words  which  may, 
by  construction,  perhaps,  be  deemed  to  include 
slaves,  equally  express  the  condition  of  freemen 
who  owe  service  or  labor  in  virtue  of  voluntary- 
contract  obligation.  Nor  is  this  omission  acci 
dental.  All  the  world  now  knows,  and  I  shall 
hereafter  show,  that  every  word  and  syllable 
which  meant  slave  or  slavery,  and  nothing  else, 
•was  carefully  and  anxiously  excluded  from  the 
Constitution,  for  the  very  reason  avowed  by 
Madison,  who  uttered  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  Convention,  "that  it  would  be  wrong  to  ad 
mit  into  the  Constitution  the  idea  that  there 
could  be  property  in  man."  But  even  in  those 
clauses  of  doubtful  phraseology,  which  in  one 
sense  may  be  construed  to  include  slave,  not,  be 
it  remarked,  as  property,  but  as  persons ;  even 
in  those,  I  say,  I  find  no  mention  of  the  rights 
of  recaption ;  no  mention  of  the  master,  or  of 
Congress,  or  of  any  other  department  of  the 
Federal  Government ;  still  less  do  you  find  any 
grant  of  power  to  either  over  this  subject.  Vain 
ly  do  you  read  the  'whole  instrument  in  search 
of  any  such  express  grant.  It  is  not  there ;  and 
nobody  pretends  to  say  it  is  there.  Still  less 
does  anybody  pretend  that  this  power  to  reclaim 
fugitive  slaves,  either  by  the  master  or  by  the 
Congress,  is  subsidiary  to  any  expressly  grant 
ed  power.  But  this  being  ascertained,  the  ex 
amination  of  the  question  ends.  By  each  and 
all  the  rules  of  interpretation  I  have  invoked, 
and  their  correctness,  no  one  will  doubt,  if  the 
power  is  not  expressly  granted  —  if  it  do  not 
stand  out  from  the  text  of  the  Constitution  in 
characters  so  unmistakable  that  he  who  runs 
may  read  —  th<e  power  has  no  existence. 
Since,  then,  it  is  not  expressly  granted,  — 
since  it  does  not  so  stand  out,  there  is  nothing 
left  to  discuss,  nothing  to  be  done,  but  to  de 
clare  the  result  which  the  settled  rules  inexor 
ably  affix  to  this  absence  of  express  grant, 
namely :  that  the  power  claimed  does  not  exist, 
and  the  act  is  therefore  VOID.  THAT  is  the  con 
clusion,  and  it  is  as  irresistible  as  Omnipotence 
itself.  The  wit  of  man  cannot  get  over  or 
around  it,  and  here  this  argument  ought  to  close. 
Why  should  one  truth  be  demonstrated  more 
than  once  ?  Upon  this  ground  alone  I  might 
well  claim  that  the  applicants  arc  wrongfully  de 
tained  in  custody,  and  here  rest  their  right  to 
an  immediate  and  unconditional  discharge.  But 
as  the  question  now  under  discussion  is  one 
which  so  nearly  concerns,  not  only  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  States,  but  the  personal  rights  of 
the  citizen,  it  may  not  be  wholly  unprofitable 
to  show  still  farther  the  immovable  stability  of 


the  base  upon  which  that  sovereignty  rests,  and 
the  impregnable  safeguards  with  which  the  lib 
erty  of  the  citizen  has  been  hedged  about  Xow 
let  it  be  supposed,  though  the  supposition  seems 
quite  impossible,  that  I  am  utterly  mistaken  as 
to  each  and  all  of  the  four  principles  upon  which 
I  have  asserted  that  the  power  of  Congress  over 
this  subject  is  to  be  ascertained  and  determined, 
— let  it  be  granted  that  powers  may  be  imputed 
to  Congress  by  implication,  that  slavery  may 
exist  in  virtue  of  doubtful  phrases  or  equivocal 
enactments,  and  that  in  construing  the  Consti 
tution  no  intendment  is  to  be  made  in  favor  of 
freedom,  then  I  have  to  say  that  even  if  you  ap 
ply  to  the  Constitution  the  same  rules  of  inter 
pretation  by  which  you  would  ascertain  the 
sense  of  a  mere  huckstering  bargain  between 
two  traders,  forgetting  all  narrow  prejudices  in 
favor  of  freedom,  it  is  still  easy  to  show  that 
even  upon  that  mode  of  interpretation  you  can 
find  no  warrant  for  the  exercise  of  this  power. 
All  who  insist  upon  the  existence  of  this  power 
derive  it  from  the  last  clause  of  the  second  sec 
tion  of  the  fourth  article,  which  provides  as  fol 
lows  : — 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  an 
other,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  reg 
ulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  ser 
vice  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  la 
bor  may  be  due." 

Now,  upon  looking  at  the  sections  of  the  con 
stitution  which  immediately  precede  and  follow 
this  clause,  I  find  various  provisions  in  which 
power  is  expressly  given  to  Congress  over  va 
rious  subjects,  but  in  this  clause  not  only  is  Con 
gress  not  mentioned,  but  there  is  no  grant  of 
power  to  any  one.  Upon  the  maxim  of  expres- 
sio  umus,  etc.,  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpreta 
tion,  and  the  laws  of  common  sens-o  infer,  that 
since  power  is  given  in  relation  to  other  subjects 
provided  for  in  the  clauses  immediately  before 
and  after  this,  and  none  is  given  as  to  this,  none 
was  intended  to  be  given.  If  they  intended  to 
give  the  power  in  this  instance  why  not  say  so, 
as  they  said  in  all  other  cases '?  Si  non  dixti 
non  voluii.  -But  again,  upon  looking  at  those 
subjects  in  respect  to  which  power  is  affirma 
tively  given,  I  find  them  all  to  be  either  of  na 
tional  concern,  that  is,  affecting  the  General 
Government  and  necessary  to  its  efficiency,  or 
subjects  in  which  the  citizens  of  all  the  States 
have  a  common  interest.  But  here  the  subject 
is  neither  of  national  concern,  nor  is  it  one  in 
which  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  have  a  com 
mon  interest.  On  the  contrary,  this  subject 
was  one  of  purely  domestic  policy  —  it  was 
entirely  a  local  affair ;  the  institution  which  is 
thought  to  be  intended  by  its  circuitous  phrase 
ology,  was  one  to  which  a  portion  of  the  States 
were  utterly  hostile,  and  this  feeling  was  grow 
ing  stronger  daily —  and  it  was  therefore  one 
in  respect  to  which  it  was  not  proper  to  confer 
any  power.  Hence  no  power  was  given. 


204 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Still  again,  upon  looking  at  the  language  of 
the  clause  itself  alone,  it  is  seen  that  it'  con 
templates  :  — 

First.  That  in  some  of  the  States  persons  are 
held  to  labor  or  service  under  the  laws  thereof. 
So  far,  of  course,  the  clause  has  plain  reference 
to  States  alone. 

Second.  That  persons  so  held  under  the 
laws  of  one  State  may  escape  into  another 
State.  Still  again,  having  reference  to  States 
only. 

Third.  That  in  the  State  to  which  the  person 
thus  held  to  service  under  the  laws  of  another 
State  has  escaped,  there  may  be  laws  or  regula 
tions  which  would  operate  to  discharge  him 
from  that  labor  or  service  ;  still,  again,  having 
reference  to  States  and  Stale  laws  or  regula 
tions. 

Fourth.  Then  providing  that  such  State  laws 
or  regulations  shall  not  have  the  effect  or  con 
sequence  to  discharge  the  escaping  person  from 
the  labor  to  which  he  is  held  in  another  State 
under  its  laws ;  still  having  reference  to  States 
and  nothing  else.  Now  if  the  section  stopped 
here  no  one  would  pretend  that  the  least  iota 
of  power  was  intended  to  be  conferred  upon 
Congress.  It  does  not,  however,  stop  here,  but 
without  break  or  pause  proceeds  in  the  same 
sentence  to  add  by  way  of  antithesis,  "  but 
shall  be  delivered  up,"  etc.  To  whom  is  this 
addressed?  Obviously  to  the  same  object 
which  had  before  been  addressed,  for  no  new 
one  is  introduced  as  the  subject  of  the  com 
mand.  "  Shall  be  delivered  up."  By  whom  ? 
No  one  is  specified,  but  by  the  laws  of  well- 
speaking,  not  less  than  by  the  laws  of  the  struc 
ture  of  language,  the  clause  has  necessary  ref 
erence  to  some  power  which  has  been  named 
before ;  and  that  power  is  the  States  alone. 
Somebody  "shall  not  discharge;"  somebody 
"  shall  deliver  up,"  and  the  body  addressed  in 
the  one  case  is  the  body  addressed  in  the  other. 
Now  who  "  shall  not  discharge  ?  "  The  States, 
for  so  says  the  clause  in  terms.  Then,  who 
shall  deliver  up?  The  States  plainly.  But 
how  many  of  the  States  ?  Not  all,  nor  any 
two  or  more  of  them  at  any  one  time,  any  one 
fugitive,  but  the  solitary  State  whichever  it  be, 
into  which  at  any  time,  any  given  fugitive  may 
escape,  from  any  other  State. 

Have  I  not  then  established  my  position  that 
even  if  you  may  resort  to  inferences  to  attribute 
a  power  to  Congress,  if  you  may  ignore  the 
great  rules  which  apply  to  all  questions  of  per 
sonal  freedom,  and  if  you  may  interpret  this  in 
strument  by  the  same  rules  which  you  apply  to 
any  commercial  compact,  a  contract  of  copart 
nership,  a  constitution  of  agency,  that  the  re 
sult  is  still  the  same,  and  on  no  rule  of  con 
struction  can  you  find  here  any  power  in  Con 
gress.  For  what  can  be  plainer  than  that  here 
is  a  compact  between  the  States  upon  a  mere 
matter  of  comity  and  good  neighborhood,  pro 
viding  a  rule  for  the  adjustment  of  certain  re 
lations  which  might  be  sustained  by  any  two 


States  at  a  given  time,  and  nothing  more  or  less  ! 
Congress  is  not  once  mentioned  ;  no  matter  of 
national  interest  is  mooted,  and  least  and  last  of 
all,  is  there  the  slightest  hint  from  which  by  any 
process  of  torture  Congressional  or  Federal  ju 
risdiction  can  be  implied  of  the  relations  here 
adjusted.  Just  before  and  immediately  follow 
ing  this  section,  three  times  in  the  same  article, 
Congress  has  delegated  to  it  certain  powers,  — 
but  not  a  mention  of  power  here,  except  indi 
vidual  State  power.  What  could  be  more  con 
clusive  upon  this  question  ? 

And  then,  when  I  go  back  to  the  true  rules 
by  which  this  great  instrument  is  to  be  inter 
preted,  and  find  the  result  to  be  the  same  as  by 
the  most  ordinary  rules,  then  I  may  say,  not 
untruly,  that  this  result  is  absolutely  impregna 
ble, — that  this  clause  is  one  of  compact  merely, 
which  the  States  alone  can  execute ;  and  that 
the  Congress  has  no  more  power  to  provide  for 
the  caption  of  fugitives  from  service  within  the 
States,  than  the  "Parliament  of  Great  Britain, 
or  a  "  Pow  Wow  "  of  the  Camanchc  Indians. 

Conclusive  as  this  is,  this  is  by  no  means  all. 
'J'he  history  of  this  clause  confirms,  with  irre 
sistible  certainty  and  force,  the  result  arrived 
at  from  an  examination  of  its  language  alone. 
This  provision,  and  the  other  three  which  pre 
cede  it  in  this  article,  are,  as  the  Court  well 
know,  by  no  means  new  in  the  Constitution. 
That  which  relates  to  the  effect  of  records,  ex 
cept  as  to  the  grant  of  powqr, —  that  which  re 
lates  to  the  privileges  of  citizens,  and  that 
which  relates  to  the  extradition  of  fugitives 
from  justice,  were  taken  from  the  old  articles 
of  confederation,  while  that  which  relates  to  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  is  taken 
from  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  What  did  these 
clauses  mean  originally,  in  the  places  from  which 
they  came  ?  Were  they  compacts  or  grants  of 
power?  Let  us  see,  and  first  of  those  contained 
in  the  articles  of  confederation. 

The  first  article  of  the  confederation  estab 
lishes  the  style  of  the  confederacy,  the  "  United 
States  of  America."  The  second  article  is  the 
key  to  the  whole,  and  deserves  special  attention. 
It  declares  that,  "  Each  State  retains  its  sover 
eignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and  every 
power,  right,  and  jurisdiction,  which  is  not  by 
this  confederation  expressly  delegated  to  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled."  No  im 
plied  powers  here  ?  Jealous  of  the  Government 
they  were  about  to  create,  —  limited  as  it  was, 
and  weak  as  it  proved  to  be,  —  the  States  in 
sert  this  limitation  as  the  first,  fundamental  con 
dition  of  the  confederacy,  and  by  it  sternly  and 
explicitly  forbid  the  assumption  of  any  function 
or  power  save  that  expressly  delegated,  and 
carefully  retain  to  the  States  every  scintilla  that 
is  not  in  terms  granted.  There  can,  then,  be 
110  difficulty  in  ascertaining  what  powers  be 
longed  to  the  Congress  of  the  old  confederation. 
They  are  carefully  enumerated ;  we  have  only 
to  read  the  schedule ;  none  others  exist.  Let 
us  go  on.  In  the  third  article,  "  The  States 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


205 


severally  enter  into  a  firm  league  of  friendship 
with  each  other"  for  their  common  defence, 
and  "  bind  themselves  to  assist  each  other 
against  all  force,"  etc., — a  simple  treaty,  com 
pact,  or  obligation,  but  no  grant  of  power  to 
Congress. 

By  the  first  clause  of  the  fourth  article,  the 
free  inhabitants  of  each  State,  except  paupers, 
vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from  justice,  are  enti 
tled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citi 
zens  in  the  several  States ;  still  a  clause  of  com 
pact,  but  no  grant  of  power. 

The  second  clause  of  the  same  article  is  in 
these  words :  — 

"  If  any  person  guilty  of  or  charged  with 
treason,  felony,  or  other  legal  misdemeanor  in 
any  State  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found 
in  any  of  the  United  States,  he  shall,  upon  de 
mand  of  the  Governor  or  executive  power  of  the 
State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up,  and 
removed  to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of  his 
offence." 

No  power  is  here  delegated  expressly  or  oth 
erwise,  to  the  Congress  to  deliver  up  the  person 
guilty'  or  charged ;  but,  under  the  second  ar 
ticle,  each  State  retains  that  power  as  entire, 
unquestionable,  as  if  the  confederation  had 
never  existed.  This  clause  was  also  simple 
compact,  and  I  desire  special  attention  to  be 
given  to  this. 

The  third  and  last  clause  of  this  article  pro 
vided  that  "  full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given 
in  each  of  these  States  to  the  records,  acts,  etc., 
of  the  Courts  and  Magistrates  of  every  other 
State."  No  grant  of  power  here,  and  Congress 
therefore  could  not  enforce  or  regulate  this 
clause  of  compact.  Each  State  retained  in  all 
its  fulness  and  vigor  "  every  power,  jurisdiction, 
and  right "  over  the  manner  in  which  this  agree 
ment  should  be  performed.  So  much  for  the 
force  and  effect  of  these  clauses  as  they  stood 
in  the  articles  of  Confederation  —  compacts  all 
—  no  power  over  them  in  the  Congress  —  full 
and  absolute  power  over  them  in  the  States 
and  in  them  alone.  And  how  was  it  with  the 
provision  relating  to  "fugitives  from  service," 
as  that  stood  in  the  Ordinance  of  1 787  ?  That 
Ordinance  was  passed  on  the  13th  of  July, 
1787,  while  the  Convention  that  framed  the 
Constitution  was  still  in  session,  and  in  the 
midst  of  its  labors.  Its  first  provisions  arc 
devoted  entirely  to  framing  a  temporary  gov 
ernment  which  should  suffice  during  the  condi 
tion  of  territorial  pupilage.  Having  by  a  few 
carefully  drawn  provisions  accomplished  this 
object,  the  Congress,  casting  its  eyes  into  the 
distant  future,  proceeded  with  a  wise  and 
provident  forecast,  to  establish  certain  great 
principles  which  should  forever  secure  to  the 
millions  who  were  thereafter  to  inherit  it,  the 
rights  of  personal  liberty,  the  security  of  prop 
erty,  the  freedom  of  conscience,  the  blessings 
of  education,  and  the  right  to  self-government. 
In  order  that  these  principles  might  not  be 
deemed  either  to  partake  of  the  character,  or 


be  subject  to  the  incidents  of  ordinary  legisla 
tive  enactment,  the  Congress,  after  a  brief 
preamble,  reciting  that  for  extending  "the 
fundamental  'principles  of  the  civil  and  reli 
gious  liberty,  which  form  the  basis  whereon 
these  republics,  their  laws  and  constitutions 
are  erected ;  to  fix  and  establish  those  princi 
ples  as  the  basis  of  all  laws,  constitutions,  and 
governments  which  shall  forever  be  formed  "  in 
said  territory,"  —  proceeded,  not  to  enact  an 
ordinary  statute,  but  to  ordain  and  declare 
that  the  following  articles  shall  be  considered 
as  articles  of  COMPACT  between  the  original 
States  and  the  States  and  people  of  said 
territory,  and  forever  remain  unalterable, 
except  by  common  consent.  The  first  five 
articles  of  compact  define,  in  a  few  brief 
words,  the  great  principles  which  underlie  all 
free  government,  and  then  last  and  greatest  of 
all  comes  the  sixth  article  of  compact,  contain 
ing,  first,  the  memorable  ordinance  which  con 
secrated  the  soil  of  the  North-west  to  freedom 
forever ;  and  second,  this  proviso,  "  that  when 
any  person  escaping  into  the  territory,  from 
whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in 
any  one  of  the  original  States,  such  fugitive 
may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to 
the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  as  afore 
said."  Now,  this  was  undeniably  a  mere 
compact,  and  it  is  so  distinctly  named;  con 
ferring  no  power  on  the  Congress  of  the  Con 
federation,  not  only  because  simply  a  compact, 
but  because  the  United  States  is  not  even  a 
party  to  it.  This  clause  was  copied  from  an 
old  New  England  compact,  made  in  1G42, 
between  Massachusetts  Bay  and  some  of  her 
neighbors.  But  it  granted  no  power,  being 
simply  an  agreement  to  return  each  other's 
runaway  servants.  Dane  copied  a  familiar 
provision  of  New  England  policy.  In  all  its 
mutations  it  was  simply  compact.  Now  the 
substance  of  each  of  these  four  articles  of  the 
compact,  which  we  have  been  considering, 
three  of  which  existed  in  the  Confederation, 
and  one  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  found  its  way 
into  the  Constitution,  forming  the  first  and 
second  sections  of  the  fourth  article,  as  we 
have  already  seen.  How  came  these  agree 
ments  of  the  old  compacts  of  '77  and  '87,  into 
the  Federal  Constitution?  What  change  did 
they  undergo  in  passing  there  ?  Have  they  in 
any  way  been  transformed  from  mutual  cove 
nants  between  contracting  parties,  into  grants 
of  power  by  parties  surrendering  what  they 
had  retained  to  themselves  for  ten  years,  to  a 
new  government,  then  for  the  first  time 
created  ?  If  so,  how,  when,  by  what  apt  words 
were  these  mutual  stipulations  transformed  into 
grants  of  power  ?  Let  us  trace  the  history  of 
the  progress  of  these  covenant  obligations  until 
they  became  incorporated  into  the  present 
Constitution.  But  before  doing  this  it  may  be 
well  to  premise  that  during  the  whole  ten  years 
of  the  old  Confederation,  no  complaint  was 
made  of  the  non-performance  by  any  of  the 


206 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


States  of  the  clauses  of  this  compact  contained 
in  the  articles,  or  any  apprehension  expressed 
of  such  nbn-performance  in  the  future,  or  any 
charge  as  to  the  terms  or  effects  of  them  sug 
gested  as  desirable  from  any  quarter,  save  in 
a  single  instance.  On  the  25th  June,  '78, 
South  Carolina  moved  to  insert  the  word 
"  white  "  after  the  word  "  free,"  in  the  clause 
stipulating  for  the  immunities  of  the  free  inhabi 
tants  of  one  State  in  all  the  other  States,  so  as 
to  limit  the  operation  of  the  compact  to  free 
icJiite  inhabitants,  on  which  proposition  the 
States  voted  —  ayes  two,  noes  eight,  divided 
one,  and  so  the  motion  was  decisively  rejected. 
Nor  during  this  whole  period  of  ten  years  was 
any  desire  expressed  to  add  to  these  stipula 
tions  any  agreement  for  the  reclamation  of 
fugitives  from  service,  though  in  many  other 
respects  the  articles  of  Confederation  were  the 
subject  of  vehement  disputes  among  the  States, 
approaching  at  times  to  the  very  verge  of  arbi 
trament  by  battle.  In  this  condition  of  entire 
satisfaction  as  to  these  causes  of  compact  now 
under  discussion,  the  convention  first  met  at 
Philadelphia  on  the  14th  of  May,  1787,  and  on 
the  25th  of  that  month  organized  by  the  elec 
tion  of  George  Washington  as  its  President, 
and  commenced  its  labors.  On  the  29th  of 
May,  Charles  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina, 
submitted  the  first  draft  of  a  Constitution, 
which  became  the  basis  of  the  farther  action  of 
the  Convention,  of  which  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  articles  were  as  follows  :  — 

XII.  —  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be 
entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citi 
zens  of  the  several  States.    Any  person  charged 
with  crimes  in  any  State,  fleeing  from  justice  to 
another,  shall,  on  demand  of  the  Executive  of 
the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up, 
and  removed  to  the  State  having  jui-isdiction  of 
the  offence." 

XIII.  —  "Full  faith  shall  be  given  in  each 
State  to  the  acts  of  the  Legislature,  and  to  the 
records  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the  courts 
and  magistrates  of  every  State?' 

Except  that  the  words  free  inhabitants  in  the 
first  clause  was  changed  to  "  citizens,"  and 
some  merely  verbal  alteration  in  other  respects 
of  the  same  clause,  not  at  all  changing  its  effect, 
these  clauses  arc  identical  in  all  particulars  with 
the  provisions  in  the  articles  of  confederation. 
As  to  the  two  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice, 
and  the  effect  of  records,  there  is  absolutely  no 
difference.  They  are,  therefore,  still  clauses  of 
compact,  —  nothing  else  ;  ctnd  no  intimation  yet 
of  an  intent  to  transform  them  to  grants  of 
power,  nor  any  suggestion  yet  made  from  any 
quarter,  to  provide  in  any  form,  either  by 
grants  of  power  or  simple  stipulation,  for  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  service.  For,  as 
yet,  no  such  provision  existed  anywhere,  the 
Ordinance  of  '87  not  yet  having  been  adopted. 
But  let  us  look  still  farther.  Six  other  plans 
were  submitted  to  the  Convention,  but  in  no 
one  of  these  other  six  was  the  subject  either  of 


the  faith  due  to  records,  the  immunities  of  citi 
zens,  or  the  surrender,  either  of  fugitives  from 
service  or  justice,  once  alluded  to,  and  this, 
though  the  very  object  of  all  these  different 
drafts  was  to  bring  before  the  Convention  the 
views  of  their  authors  in  respect  to  the  matters 
upon  which  provision  should  be  made  in  the 
Constitution.  These  plans  were :  — 

Edmund  Randolph,  29th  May. 

Mr.  Patterson  (N.  J.),  Ith5  June. 

Hamilton,  18th  June. 

Randolph's  amended,  19th  June. 

Committee  of  detail,  1  Rep.  26th  July. 

"       "       2  Rep.    4th  September. 

All  of  these  plans  were  discussed  and  re 
ferred  to  the  appropriate  committee,  and  on  the 
Gth  of  August,  a  month  after,  what  are  called 
the  compromises,  were  settled,  and  all  difficul 
ties  overcome.  This  committee  of  five  —  of 
which  John  Rutledge,  of  South  Carolina,  was 
chairman  —  reported  a  constitution  entire,  of 
which  the  fourteenth,  fifteenth,  and  sixteenth  ar 
ticles  were  as  follows:  — 

Art.  XIV.  —  "The  citizens  of  each  State 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immuni 
ties  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Art.  XV.  —  "  Any  person  charged  with  trea 
son,  felony,  or  high  misdemeanor  in  any  State, 
who  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  shall  be  found 
in  any  other  State,  shall,  on  demand  of  the  ex 
ecutive  power  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled, 
be  delivered  up  and  removed  to  the  State  hav 
ing  jurisdiction  of  the  offence." 

Art.  XVI.  —  "  Full  faith  shall  be  given  in 
each  State  to  the  acts  of  the  legislature,  and  to 
the  records  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the 
courts  and  magistrates  of  every  other  State." 

These  articles  are  the  same  as  the  articles  of 
confederation,  except  as  to  immunities  of  citi 
zens,  and  are  in  every  respect  identical  with 
Pinckncy's  draft,  except  that  one  of  his  articles 
is  here  divided  into  two.  Still,  as  before, 
clauses  of  compact;  still  no  grant  of  power 
asked  for ;  still  no  hint  from  any  source  that  the 
reclamation  of  fugitives  from  service  should  be 
provided  for  in  any  form.  This  report  was  re 
ferred  to  committee  of  the  whole,  and,  August 
28th,  these  articles  came  up  in  their  order  for 
discussion,  and  here  is  what  transpired :  — 

I  read  from  the  third  volume  of  Madison 
Papers,  page  1447,  every  word  that  trans 
pired  :  — 

"  Article  fourteen  (which  related  to  the  im 
munities,  of  citizens)  was  then  taken  up.  Gen 
eral  Pinckney  (Charles  Cotesworth)  was  not 
satisfied  with  it.  He  seemed  to  wish  some  pro 
vision  should  be  included  in  favor  of  property 
in  slaves." 

Did  any  one  second  this  suggestion  ?  No. 
It  was  received  with  silent  contempt ;  for,  with 
out  the  utterance  of  another  word  from  any 
quarter,  the  Convention  proceeded  to  vote  on 
the  article,  and  adopted  it  as  it  stood,  —  nine 
States  voting  aye,  South  Carolina  uttering  a 
solitary  no,  and  Georgia  being  divided.  What 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


207 


next  ?  Still  reading  the  Madison  Papers,  we 
shall  see :  — 

"  Article  fifteen  being  then  taken  up,  the 
•words,  '  high  misdemeanor '  were  stricken  out, 
and  the  words,  '  other  crime  '  inserted,  in  order 
to  comprehend  all  proper  cases ;  it  being  doubt 
ful  whether  '  high  misdemeanor '  had  not  a 
technical  meaning  too  limited. 

"  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Pinckney  moved  to  re 
quire  *  fugitive  slaves  and  servants  to  be  deliv 
ered  up  like  criminals.'" 

"  Mr.  Wilson.  This  would  oblige  the  Ex 
ecutive  of  the  State  to  do  it,  at  the  public  ex 
pense. 

"  Mr.  Sherman  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the 
public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave  or  ser 
vant,  than  a  horse. 

"Mr.  Butler  withdrew  his  proposition,  in  or 
der  that  some  particular  provision  might  be 
made,  apart  from  this  article. 

"  Article  15,  as  amended,  was  then  agreed  to, 
nemine  contradiccnte" 

Here  is  every  word  that  transpired  on  that 
subject,  but  still  no  hint  that  the  clause  should 
be  changed  from  compact  to  grant  of  power. 

The  next  morning  (Aug.  29),  "Art.  16," 
(that  which  relates  to  the  effect  of  records,  etc., 
and  I  still  read  from  the  Madison  Papers)  being 
taken  up, 

"  Mr.  Williamson  moved  to  substitute,  in  place 
of  it,  the  words  of  the  articles  of  confederation 
on  the  same  subject.  He  did  not  understand 
precisely  the  meaning  of  the  article. 

"  Mr.  Wilson  and  Doctor  Johnson  supposed 
the  meaning  to  be,  that  judgments  in  one  State 
should  be  the  ground  of  actions  in  other  States, 
and  that  acts  of  the  Legislatures  should  be 
eluded,  for  the  sake  of  acts  of  insolvency, 
etc. 

"  Mr.  Pinckney  moved  to  connect  article  1 6 
with  the  following  proposition :  '  To  establish 
uniform  laws  upon  the  subject  of  bankruptcies, 
and  respecting  the  damages  arising  on  the  pro 
test  of  foreign  bills  of  exchange.' 

"  Mr.  Gorham  was  for  agreeing  to  the  article, 
and  committing  the  proposition. 

"  Mr.  Madison  was  for  committing  both.  He 
wished  THE  LEGISLATURE  MIGHT  BE  AU 
THORIZED  to  provide  for  the  execution  of  judg 
ments  in  other  States,  under  such  regulations 
as  might  be  expedient.  He  thought  that  this 
ininjht  be  safely  done,  and  was  justified  by  the 
value  of  the  Union. 

"  Mr.  Randolph  said  there  was  no  instance  of 
one  nation  executing  judgments  of  the  Courts 
of  another  nation.  He  moved  the  following 
proposition :  — 

"  4  Whenever  the  act  of  any  State,  whether 
legislative,  executive,  or  judiciary,  shall  be  at 
tested  and  exemplified  under  the  seal  thereof, 
such  attestation  and  exemplification  shall  be 
deemed  in  other  States  as  full  proof  of  the  ex 
istence  of  that  act ;  and  its  operation  shall  be 
binding  \\\  every  other  State,  in  all  cases  to 
which  it  may  relate,  and  which  are  within  the 


cognizance  and  jurisdiction  of  the  State  where 
in  the  said  act  was  done/ 

"  On  the  question  for  committing  article  16, 
with  Mr.  Pinckney 's  motion,  nine  States  voted 
aye.  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  alone 
voted  no. 

"  The  motion  of  Mr.  Randolph  was  also  com 
mitted,  nemine  contradiccnte. 

"Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  moved  to  commit 
also  the  following  proposition  on  the  same  sub 
ject  :  — 

"  '  Full  faith  ought  to  be  given  in  each  State 
to  the  public  acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceed 
ings  of  every  other  State  ;  and  the  Legislature 
shall,  by  general  law,  determine  the  proof  and 
effect  of  such  acts,  records,  and  proceedings ; ' 
and  it  was  committed,  nemine  contradicentc."  • 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  Madison  wanted  a 
grant  of  power  over  the  subject  of  judgments 
and  records,  and  so  did  the  majority.  No  one 
intimated  that  it  was  there  already ;  but  the 
clause  was  recommitted,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  giving  it.  This  committee  afterwards  re 
ported  back  a  clause  substantially  like  that 
proposed  by  Gouverneur  Morris,  which  was  the 
same,  in  effect,  with  the  clause  as  it  now  stands ; 
and  then  all  three  of  these  articles  were  sent 
to  the  committee  of  "  style  and  arrangement," 
where,  for  the  present,  I  now  leave  them. 

Now,  how  did  the  compact  relating  to  the 
delivery  of  fugitives  from  service,  which  was 
taken  from  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  find  its  way 
into  the  Constitution  V  The  Madison  papers 
shall  tell  us.  On  the  same  29th  of  August,  the 
record  says :  — 

"Mr.  Butler  moved  to  insert  after  article 
15th,  'If  any  person  bound  to  service  or  labor 
in  any  of  the  United  States,  shall  escape  into 
another  State,  he  or  she  shall  not  be  discharged 
from  such  service  or  labor  in  consequence  of 
any  regulations  subsisting  in  the  State  to  which 
they  escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the 
person  justly  claiming  their  service  or  labor,' 
which  was  agreed  to,  nemine  contradiccnte." 

And  this  is  every  word  that  was  uttered  in 
relation  to  this  clause,  either  on  this  or  on  any 
other  occasion  during  the  entire  convention, 
with  a  single  pregnant  exception,  shortly  to  be 
stated.  A  bare  reading  of  the  clause,  and  an 
immediate,  unanimous  assent  to  its  provisions. 
That  is  the  whole  record. 

This  provision  of  Butler's,  the  Court  has,  of 
course,  noticed,  is  substantially  like  that  con 
tained  in  the  ordinance,  and  was  undoubtedly 
taken  by  Butler  from  that  instrument  which 
had  been  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  the  Con 
federation,  then  also  in  session,  only  forty-seven 
days  before  he  introduced  it  into  the  conven 
tion.  It  was  then  still  compact,  and  nothing 
else.  No  mention  of  Federal  Government, 
much  less  any  grant  of  power.-  Having  been 
thus  agreed  to,  this  clause  was  also  sent  to  the 
committee  of  "style  and  arrangement,"  to 
which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  other  three 
clauses  taken  from  the  old  articles  of  coiifed- 


208 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


eration  had  also  been  committed.  The  func 
tion  of  this  committee  (of  which  Benjamin 
Franklin  was  chairman)  was  precisely  what  its 
name  imports.  Its  sole  duty  was  to  see  that  the 
various  provisions  which  had  been  adopted  by 
the  convention  should,  without  any  change  of 
meaning  or  effect,  be  expressed  in  apt  lan 
guage,  "  style,"  and  then  "  arranged  "  in  a  nat 
ural  and  orderly  manner.  What  did  this  com 
mittee  do  with  these  four  clauses  ?  After  set 
tling  the  style,  but  still  preserving  the  effect, 
they  proceed  to  "  arrange  "  the  order  in  which 
they  shall  be  placed,  and  this  is  how  they  did 
that :  They  took  the  clause  relating  to  records, 
which,  until  then,  had  stood  last  in  order  of  the 
four ;  but  to  which  a  grant  of  power  had,  in 
the  mean  time,  been  added ;  and  put  that  at 
the  head  of  the  list  as  a  distinct  section.  They 
then  took  up  the  clause  relating  to  fugitives 
from  service.  Add  that  clause  to  the  one  re 
lating  to  fugitives  from  justice,  and  to  that 
again  add  the  stipulation  relating  to  tlic  immu 
nities  of  citizens ;  and  these  three  stipulations 
they  constituted  as  the  second  section  of  that 
article  ;  thus  grouping  together  all  those  clauses 
which  constituted  merely  articles  of  compact 
into  one  section,  but  separating  into  a  distinct 
section,  and  placing  at  the  head  of  the  list 
what,  though  originally  a  compact,  had  been 
purposely  transformed  by  express  words  of 
grant  into  a  delegation  of  power. 

But  from  this  mere  order  of  arrangement, 
one  sees  at  a  glance  that  the  committee  of  style 
and  arrangement  thought  there  was  something 
in  the  first  section,  independent  of  its  subject- 
matter,  which  distinguished  it  from  the  other 
three  which  they  grouped  into  a  section  by 
themselves.  What  was  that  V  The  one  had  a 
grant  of  power  in  it;  the  others  had  none.  A 
very  obvious  and  conclusive  ground  for  dis 
tinction. 

In  this  order,  the  order  in  which  they  now 
stand  —  these  sections  were  reported  back  to 
the  Convention.  What  did  the  Convention  do 
with  them?  The  clause  relating  to  fugitives 
from  service,  as  reported  back,  read  :  "  No  per 
son  legally  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  escaping,"  etc. ;  but  the  Convention 
struck  out  the  word  "  legally,"  and  inserted 
after  the  word  "  State  "  the  phraseology,  "  un 
der  the  laws  thereof,"  as  it  now  reads,  for  the 
reason,  says  Madison,  that  "  some  thought  the 
4  legally  '  equivocal,  and  favoring  the  idea  that 
slavery  was  legal  in  a  moral  point  of  view." 
With  this  single  change  —  one  by  the  way  of 
the  deepest  significance  in  its  bearing  on  other 
questions  yet  to  be  discussed,  —  the  Convention 
adopted  these  clauses  just  as  they  were  reported 
back,  and  just  as  they  now  stand  in  the  Consti 
tution.  This  is  the  veritable  history  of  each  of 
the  provisions  which  constitute  the  first  and 
second  sections  of  the  fourth  article ;  and  the 
lesson  which  it  teaches  cannot  be  mistaken  or 
forgotten. 

But  before  leaving  this  subject,  I  desire  to 


advert  briefly  to  some  considerations  which  that 
history  suggests. 

If  either  of  the  clauses  which  now  constitute 
the  second  section,  contains  any  grant  of  power 
to  the  Congress,  so  did  the  first  section  before 
any  grant  was  added  to  it.  Congress  already 
had  the  power  to  prescribe  the  effect  of  records 
as  the  article  stood  originally,  if  it  has  it  now  — 
power  either  over  fugitives  from  justice  or  ser 
vice,  or  the  immunities  of  citizens.  But  so 
thought  not  Madison,  who  desired  a  grant; 
Pinckney,  who  first  brought  it  before  the  Con 
vention,  and  the  Convention  which  ordered 
the  article  recommitted,  that  the  grant  might 
be  added.  All  these  clauses  were  originally 
articles  of  compact  in  confederation  or  ordi 
nance  ;  as  first  reported  to  the  Convention  they 
were  still  articles  of  compact;  but  on  reflection, 
the  Convention  agreed  to  add  to  one  of  them  a 
grant  of  power,  and  not  to  the  other  three  ; 
and  this  one  clause  which  then  stood  last  they 
then  make  the  first,  and  say  that  Congress  shall 
have  the  power  to  determine  the  mode  of  prov 
ing  and  the  effect  of  the  public  records  of  the 
States.  Now  why  was  power  given  them  in 
express  language  in  that  one  clause,  if  they  had 
it  already  in  all  the  clauses ?  and  they  had  it 
in  all,  if  they  had  it  in  either.  Did  n't  Madison 
and  Randolph  and  Franklin,  and  the  rest  of 
these  men,  have  sense  enough  to  know  if  it 
was  there  already  ?  And  if  there  already, 
would  Pinckney  "and  Butler  and  Randolph, 
the  chiefs  of  the  slave-holding  interest,  have 
consented  to  the  addition  of  the  express  grant 
as  to  one  of  these  clauses,  unimportant  to  the 
slave-holding  States  as  such  ;  and  by  this  very 
fact  of  express  grant  in  one  clause  have  cast 
doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  the  power  in 
another  clause,  important  to  them  alone  ?  No ! 
nobody  understood  there  was  any  power  there, 
and  if  the  Convention  had  wanted  it  there,  it 
would  have  done  as  it  did  with  the  first  clause 
—  said  in  terms  :  and  "  the  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such 
delivery  shall  be  made."  They  wasted  no 
words,  but  they  never  omitted  any  when  they 
meant  to  give  power  to  Congress. 

And  there  was  no  reason  why  they  should 
ask  the  power.  Judge  McLean  tells  us  in  his 
opinion  in  the  Prigg  case  (page  CGO)  that  from 
a  very  early  period,  fugitives  from  labor  wero 
claimed  and  delivered  up  by  the  colonies  under 
a  spirit  of  comity  or  conventional  law.  And 
this  statement  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  no 
complaints  upon  this  subject  were  made  in  the 
convention  —  that  the  topic  was  never  alluded 
to  but  twice  during  its  session  (28th  and  29th 
August)  when  the  convention  had  arrived 
within  less  than  twenty  days  of  the  close  of 
its  labors,  and  that  the  whole'discussion  thereon 
on  both  occasions  could  not  have  occupied  ten 
minutes  in  all.  The  South,  therefore,  might 
well  have  been  content  to  secure,  by  com 
pact  stipulation,  a  continuance  of  the  same 
spirit  of  comity  which  had  worked  so  satis- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


factorily  for  them  in  the  past,  and  the  north 
ern  delegates  with  all  their  determination  not 
to  foster  slavery  or  recognize  it  as  a  matter 
of  national  concern,  might  well  be  equally  con- 
.tent  to  stipulate  that  they  would  continue  to  do 
precisely  what  they  had  been  voluntarily  and 
habitually  doing  from  a  very  early  period  of 
their  history,  the  manner  of  delivery  being  still 
as  theretofore,  left  to  their  own  exclusive  regu 
lation.  That  is  the  reason  why  this  provision 
was  adopted  nemine  contradicente.  If  it  had 
been  supposed  that  this  clause  gave  any  power 
to  Congress,  it  would  have  been  kicked  out  of 
the  Convention.  Does  not  all  this  make  a  clear 
case  ?  If  not,  will  somebody  tell  me  how  — 
the  language  remaining  substantially  the  same 
—  this  clause  did  not  convey  power  in  July, 
'87,  and  did  grant  it  in  September,  '87,  two 
months  later  ?  At  the  same  time,  I  would  like 
to  know  how  Roger  Sherman  and  Elbridge 
Gerry  were  induced  to  put  that  power  there  ? 
Why,  six  days  later,  when  the  clause  appor 
tioning  taxes  and  representation  came  up  again 
for  discussion,  the  word  "servitude,"  which 
originally  stood  there,  was  unanimously  strick 
en  out,  and  the  word  "  service  "  unanimously 
inserted,  on  the  motion  of  Randolph,  a  Vir 
ginia  slaveholder,  for  the  avowed  reason  that 
the  former  phrase  was  "  thought  to  express  the 
condition  of  slaves,  and  the  latter  the  obliga 
tions  of  free  persons ; "  while,  at  other  times, 
Madison  and  Mason  and  other  Southern  men 
had  declared  their  purpose  not  to  recognize  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  the  National  Constitu 
tion  ;  and  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  these  men, 
and  this  convention,  intended  to  give,  or  thought 
they  were  giving,  power  to  this  Government  to 
keep  up  a  continual  raid  and  foray  through  all 
the  States  for  fugitive  slaves  ?  Is  it  conceiv 
able  that  they  meant  to  constitute  the  catching 
of  negroes  as  the  first  function  of  this  free 
Government,  and  that  that  Government  should 
be  broken  up  the  moment  it  failed  to  discharge 
that  duty  ?  Are  we  to  believe  that  one  half  of 
the  convention,  just  out  of  the  blood  and  fire  of 
the  Revolution,  with  the  smell  of  its  gunpow 
der  and  the  marks  of  its  shot  upon  their  gar 
ments  —  a  Revolution  begun,  continued,  and 
achieved  to  establish  the  inalienable  rights  of 
personal  liberty,  would  have  so  far  belied  their 
principles,  their  instincts  and  professions,  as 
without  any  cause,  without  any  inducement,  for 
no  one  asked  or  desired  that  this  power  should 
be  given  to  Congress,  as  to  make  themselves 
and  all  their  posterity  voluntary  parties  to  an 
eternal  national  slave  hunt?  Where  is  the 
evidence  for  this?  Not  a  jot  or  tittle  can  be 
found  anywhere.  Why,  from  all  the  debates  in 
all  the  State  conventions,  down  through  all  the 
discussions  before  the  people,  through  all  the 
letters  written  or  journals  kept  by  the  public 
or  private  men  of  that  day,  no  single  word  or 
letter  has  ever  been  produced  from  which  it 
can  be  inferred  that  any  man,  large  or  small, 
slaveholder  or  non-slaveholder,  sane  or  insane, 

27 


in  or  out  of  the  convention,  supposed  in  1787, 
that  this  clause  contained  any  grant  of  power. 
Had  the  Northern  States  imagined  that  by  as 
senting  to  this  constitution  they  were  thereby 
conferring  upon  the  Federal  Government  the 
power  to  enter  their  territory  in  pursuit  of  a 
runaway  negro ;  to  employ  the  whole  military 
and  naval  power  of  the  United  States  in  that 
pursuit;  to  subject  their  houses  to  search;  to 
override  their  own  municipal  laws  and  regula 
tions  ;  to  strike  powerless  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus ;  to  deny  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ;  does 
any  one  believe  that  it  would  have  received  the 
assent  of  a  single  State,  nay  even  of  a  single 
freeman  in  all  those  States  ?  Why,  to  speak 
of  no  other  names,  Samuel  Adams,  thundering 
out  from  Massachusetts,  and  Patrick  Henry, 
Virginian  as  he  was,  responding  from  Virginia, 
would  have  rocked  this  continent  from  end  to 
end,  till,  of  this  elaborately  contrived  structure, 
not  one  stone  should  have  been  left  upon  an 
other  And  here  I  leave  the  history  of  this 
clause  ;  but,  before  doing  so,  I  desire  to  express 
my  obligations  for  the  strongest  points  which  it 
furnishes  to  the  literally  exhaustive  argument 
of  the  lamented  Rantoul  on  the  same  topic.  If 
there  is  any  truth  in  history,  any  force  in  rea 
son,  this  clause  is  to-day  what  it  was  on  the  day 
in  which  it  first  saw  light,  a  compact  stipulation, 
and  not  a  grant  of  power.  Now,  if  to  the  re 
sult  already  attained  from  a  consideration  of 
the  text  of  the  Constitution  under  any  rule  of 
interpretation  known  to  the  law,  I  add  the  co-' 
incident  result  attained  from  the  history  of  the 
clause  itself,  the  conclusion  that  Congress  has 
no  power  over  this  subject,  and  its  corollary 
that  the  applicant  is  unlawfully  detained  in 
custody,  is  established  with  all  the  completeness 
and  certainty  of  a  mathematical  demonstra 
tion. 

But  then  I  am  told  that,  however  absolute 
and  irresistible  the  demonstration  may  be,  it 
comes  too  late.  Some  of  the  State  Courts,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  it  is' 
said,  have  ruled  the  other  way.  So  much  the 
worse  then,  be  it  said  with  due  respect,  for  the 
State  Courts,  and  even  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  If  the  result  at  which  I 
have  arrived  be  the  true  one,  and  I  submit  this 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Court,  then  it  is  abso 
lutely  of  no  importance  to  the  success  or  sta 
bility  of  that  demonstration  what  any  Court 
has  said  or  ruled  about  it.  If  they  have  de 
cided  contrary,  their  decisions,  of  course,  are 
erroneous,  and  they  beat  in  vain  against  its 
steadfast  base.  There  are  such  cases.  But  is 
this  Court  to  override  the  CONSTITUTION,  be 
cause  other  courts,  no  matter  of  what  rank  or 
how  many,  have  done  so  ?  If  a  wrong  adjudi 
cation  is  made  in  one  case,  must  every  other 
like  case,  therefore,  be  also  wrongly  deter 
mined  ?  If  one  man  starts  upon  the  downward 
road,  is  every  other  man  in  the  universe  to  fol 
low  till  the  precipice  yawns  sheer  ?  When  and 
how,  in  this  blind  adherence  to  acknowledged. 


210 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


error,  is  the  right  ever  to  be  established  ?  Set 
tled  ?  Why,  no  question  which  concerns  consti 
tutional  freedom  can  ever  be  settled  till  it  is  set 
tled  absolutely  right.  You  may  pile  decision 
on  decision  till  from  the  summit  of  the  mass 
you  can  scale  the  heavens,  but  it  will  avail 
nothing  against  the  inherent,  irrepressible  pow 
er  of  the  Constitution  to  vindicate  even  against 
judicial  chicane  the  guarantees  with  which  it 
has  fortified  the  liberties  of  the  citizen.  At 
some  time  —  I  know  not  when,  perhaps  it  may 
be  now — there  will  be  found  some  Judge,  some 
Court  —  oh  !  may  it  be  this  Court !  —  which 
shall,  by  a  few  fit  words  so  fitly  spoken,  as  to 
carry  conviction  to  all  hearts  and  heads  —  es 
tablish  the  IliGHT  at  once  and  for  all  coming 
ages.  -  •  -  . , 

Let  us  see,  however,  precisely  what  the  cases 
cited  are,  and  what  it  is  that  they  are  said  to 
have  u  settled."  The  cases  referred  to  by  the 
counsel  for  the  Federal  Government  as  having 
been  decided  by  the  State  Court,  are  four  in 
number:  Wright  v.  Deacon,  5  Serg.  &  Rawl.  62, 
in  Pennsylvania ;  Commonwealth  v.  Griffith,  2 
Massachusetts  Rep.  11;  Jack  v.  Martin,  12 
Wend.  Rep.  314 ;  and  14  Wend.  Rep.  in  New 
Tork,  and  lastly,  the  Simms  case,  7  Gushing, 
again  in  Massachusetts.  These  are  all  in  which 
so  far  as  my  researches  have  extended,  the 
question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate 
upon  this  matter,  has  been  the  subject  of  discus 
sion  by  any  State  Court  of  the  last  resort. 
Other  cases  there  are  in  which  the  Fugitive 
Act  of  1793,  has  been  acted  upon;  but  none 
other,  I  think,  in  which  the  question  now  made 
was  discussed.  Of  these  cases,  the  first  three 
arose  under  the  act  of  '93 ;  the  last  under  the 
act  of  1850,  and  this  last  case  I  shall  leave 
for  consideration  to  a  later  period  of  the  argu 
ment. 

Before,  however,  examining  these  cases,  it 
will  not  be  amiss  to  state  the  history  of  the  act 
and  the  effect  of  its  provisions. 

In  1 790,  some  Virginian  kidnapped  three  free 
negroes  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
carried  them  into  Virginia.  He  was  indicted 
for  the  offence  in  the  proper  court  in  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  thereupon  the  Governor  of  that 
State  made  a  requisition  in  due  form,  on  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  for  the  surrender  of  the 
kidnapper.  The  Governor  of  the  latter  State 
affecting  to  have  scruples  about  his  power  to 
surrender,  consulted  the  Attorney-General  of 
that  State,  and  finally,  upon  his  written  opin 
ion,  declined  to  make  the  surrender,  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  no  power,  under  the  Consti- 
tion,  till  Congress  should  prescribe  the  manner 
of  its  exercise.  The  Governor  of  Pennsylva 
nia  forwarded  the  correspondence  to  President 
Washington,  who  laid  it  before  Congress.  A 
bill  covering  this  subject,  originated  in  the  Sen 
ate  ;  but  by  whom  it  was  introduced,  favored  or 
opposed,  what  was  the  original  form,  what  were 
the  changes  by  amendment,  what  the  discus 
sions  upon  it,  we  know  not,  since  the  Senate 


then  sat  with  closed  doors,  and  no  journal  of  its 
debates,  if  any  were  kept,  has  ever  been  pub 
lished.  But  at  length  it  came  down  to  the 
House  in  the  simple  form  of  an  act  to  provide 
for  the  extradition  of  fugitives  from  justice, ' 
Some  astute  slaveholder  seeing  the  opportunity 
for  a  valuable  "  compromise,"  added  a  second 
section,  providing  for  the  extradition  of  fugi 
tives  from  service,  and  the  North  were  coolly 
presented  with  this  alternative :  — 

"  We,  the  South,  will  protec  from  punishment 
all  your  runaway  criminals,  unless  you  give  up 
all  our  runaway  slaves." 

Under  this  pressure,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  the 
act  in  both  sections  passed  into  the  forms 
of  law.  Thus  this  famous  (or  why  not  infa 
mous  ?)  act  found  its  way  on  the  Statute  Book, 
This  history  of  its  passage  suggests  a  reflection 
not  irrelevant  to  the  case. 

Though  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  stood 
precisely  the  same  in  1791  that  it  had  been  dur 
ing  the  ten  years  of  the  confederation,  and 
though  during  these  ten  years  no  State  had  be 
fore  objected  or  could  object  to  its  want  of  power 
to  surrender,  yet  we  here  find  it  made  for  the 
first  time.  Looking  at  the  offence  which  the  fu 
gitives  had  committed,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
the  cause  of  the  refusal.  He  had  kidnapped  a 
negro,  and  it  is  no  strained  inference  to  add, 
had  reduced  him  to  slavery ;  and  thus  Virginia, 
in  order  to  protect  the  man-stealer  against  the 
consequences  of  an  act  done  in  the  interests  of 
slavery,  committed  a  direct  aggression  upon  the 
Constitution,  and  this  first  aggression  was  cun 
ningly  made  the  pretext  of  another  aggression, 
still  in  the  interests  of  slavery,  by  inducing 
Congress  to  usurp  the  power  of  providing  for 
the  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves.  And  here, 
and  then  commenced  the  first  of  those  assaults 
upon  the  integrity  of  the  Constitution,  which 
have  been  constantly  renewed  with  fresh  vigor 
every  day,  until  what  with  Prigg  decisions, 
and  Dred  Scott  decisions,  all  of  its  ramparts  have 
been  breached,  and  that  instrument,  designed 
to  be  the  great  charter  of  freedom,  has  been 
converted  into  an  immense  machine,  which  op- 
crates  chiefly  in  two  ways ;  one  in  the  catching 
of  runaway  negroes,  the'  other  in  planting  this 
"  abomination  of  desolation "  in  "  fresh  fields 
and  pastures  new."  But  to  recur  to  the  act  of 
'93.  The  third  section  of  the  act  in  substance, 
authorizes  the  owner  of  a  fugitive  from  service 
to  seize  the  fugitive  and  take  him  before  any 
Federal  judge  residing  within  the  State,  or 
before  any  magistrate  of  any  county,  city,  or 
town  corporate~m  which  arrest  is  made ;  and  on 
proof  being  made  to  the  magistrate  that  the  per 
son  seized  doth  owe  service  to  the  claimant,  it 
is  his  duty  to  give  certificate  thereof,  to  claim 
ant;  which  shall  be  sufficient  warrant  for  re 
moval  of  fugitive  to  the  State.  The  last  section 
visits  with  a  penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars,  for 
the  benefit  of  claimant,  any  one  who  shall  ob 
struct  or  hinder  him  in  so  seizing  fugitive,  or 
rescue  fugitive  from  him,  or  conceal  or  harbor 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


211 


fugitive  after  notice.  As  before  stated,  all  the 
State  adjudications  cited  save  one,  arose  under 
this  act  which,  be  it  noted,  depends  for  its  effi 
ciency,  wholly  upon  the  action  of  State  authori 
ties,  for  in  most  of  the  free  States  you  can  only 
find  a  single  Federal  judge,  and  in  the  great 
proportion  of  the  cases,  it  would  be  quite 
impracticable  to  take  fugitive  before  Federal 
judije. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  cases  decided  under 
this  act.  [Mr.  AVolcott  here  subjected  each  of 
these  cases  to  a  rigid  analysis,  showing  the 
precise  facts,  and  questions  involved,  and  then 
proceeded.]  Thus,  may  it  please  your  Honors, 
it  is  seen,  that  in  none  of  these  cases  had  any 
Federal  functionary  undertaken  to  execute 
this  act,  and  that  each  of  these  cases,  if  they 
"  settle  "  any  thing  as  to  the  power  of  Con 
gress,  settle  only  the  one.  point,  that  Congress 
has  power  to  devolve  the  duty  of  delivering  up 
fugitive  slaves  upon  State  magistrates  and  State 
officers.  Let  this  result  of  the  cases  be  espe 
cially  kept  in  mind. 

Next  in  the  order  of  time,  we  come  to  the 
famous  Prigg  case,  16  Peters'  Rep.  650,  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
•which  it  has  also  said,  "  settles "  the  question. 
So  much  stress  has  been  everywhere  laid  on 
this  case  that  it  must  be  thoroughly  examined ; 
and,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  I  mean  to  do  it 
justice. 

Let  us  first  see  the  precise  question  it  in 
volved.  Pennsylvania,  in  1826,  at  the  request 
of  the  State  of  Maryland,  passed  an  act  pro 
viding  for  the  extradition  of  fugitive  slaves, 
through  the  action  of  its  own  State,  judges,  and 
officers,  of  which  it  is  now  sufficient  to  the  pres 
ent  purpose  to  state,  that  it  punished,  by  the 
most  severe  penalties  of  fine  and  imprisonment, 
any  person  who  should  —  except  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  that  act,  or  of  the  Fugi 
tive  act  passed  by  Congress  in  '93  —  carry  any 
colored  person  out  of  the  State  with  the  intent 
to  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  a  slave. 

Prigg  and  his  co-defendants  were  indicted 
before  the  proper  courts  of  York  county  for  forci 
bly  taking  away  Margaret  Morgan,  a  colored 
woman  with  intent  to  reduce  her  to  the  condi 
tion  of  a  slave,  contrary  to  this  act  The  jury 
returned  a  special  verdict,  finding,  among  other 
things,  that  Margaret  was  formerly  a  slave  in 
Maryland ;  that  five  years  before  the  seizure 
she  had  escaped  into  Pennsylvania;  that  the 
defendants,  as  the  constituted  agents  of  her 
former  master,  had  seized  Margaret  and  children 
—  one  of  whom  was  born  more  than  a  year  after 
the  mother  had  escaped  —  took  them  by  force 
into  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  there  delivered 
the  mother  and  her  children  as  slaves  to  her 
former  master.  Upon  this  verdict  the  court  be 
low  rendered  judgment  against  defendant,  pro 
forma,  under  special  legislative  act,  and,  after 
some  intermediate  proceedings,  not  necessary  to 
be  stated,  a  writ  of  error  was  prosecuted  out  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  re 


view  this  judgment.  This  is  the  whole  case ; 
and  upon  this  simple  statement  it  is  obvious  that 
the  only  question  before  the  Court  was  the  va 
lidity  of  this  act  of  Pennsylvania.  Accord 
ingly,  the  very  first  question  considered  by  the 
Court,  was  as  to  the  effect  of  the  constitutional 
provision  upon  the  rights  of  the  owner  of  an 
escaping  slave ;  and  the  Court  unanimously  held 
that  this  provision  of  the  compact  so  far  exe 
cuted  itself  as  to  confer  upon  the  owner  the 
right  of  recaption  ;  and,  consequently,  that  the 
act  of  Pennsylvania,  which  attempted  to  pro 
hibit  and  punish  the  exercise  of  this  right,  was 
void.  Now,  when  the  Court  had  held  this,  the 
case  was  decided ;  and  no  question  could  pos 
sibly  be  made  in  that  case  as  to  the  power  of 
Congress.  No  matter  whether  it  had  or  had 
not  power,  when  it  was  once  held  that  Pri^g 
had,  under  the  Constitution,  without  any  legis 
lation,  State  or  Federal ;  nay,  in  spite  of  legis 
lation,  the  right  to  seize  Margaret,  that  case 
was  ended ;  all  other  questions  were  coram  non 
judice ;  and  every  thing  that  is  said  about  the 
power  of  Congress  is  the  purest  obiter ;  which, 
however  forcible  as  a  mere  argument,  carries 
with  it  no  weight  as  authority  whatever. 

This  case,  then,  "  settled  "  nothing  as  to  the 
power  of  Congress,  but  leaves  that  question 
just  as  open  as  before  the  case  was  decided. 
It  still  remains,  however,  to  examine  the  obiter 
opinion  expressed  by  the  Court,  not  because 
authority,  but  as  presumably  the  strongest  pre 
sentation  that  can  be  made  of  the  argument  in 
favor  of  the  existence  of  the  power. 

At  the  very  outset  of  the  case,  it  is  openly 
confessed  that,  in  order  "  to  free  the  case  from 
difficulty,"  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  a  new 
rule  of  construction,  exclusively  applicable  to 
this  clause,  without  reference  to  those  which 
generally  apply  to  all  of  its  other  parts  and  pro 
visions.  But  what  authority  had  the  Court  thus 
to  ignore  all  the  rules  previously  established  by 
its  own  uniformly  concurring  decisions,  as 
those  alone  applicable  to  the  interpretation  of 
constitutional  provisions  ?  and  why  is  it  that 
the  rules  which  lead  to  right  conclusions  in  all 
other  cases,  are  to  be  openly  repudiated  here  ? 
The  truth  is,  and  it  is  right  to  speak  it  boldly, 
that  the  Court  well  knew  that  any  rule  hereto 
fore  recognized  would  absolutely  exclude  the 
idea  of  any  power  in  Congress,  and  as  it  had 
predetermined  to  come  to  the  opposite  conclu 
sion,  it  began  its  work  by  throwing  these  rules 
to  the  winds.  Having  thus  liberated  itself  from 
all  allegiance  to  the  rules  of  reason,  the  law  of 
logic  and  its  own  declared  canon  of  interpreta 
tion,  the  Court  proceed  directly  to  the  oft-cited 
provision  of  the  fourth  article. 

Its  first  proposition,  and  one  that  underlies 
its  whole  reasoning  is,  that,  "  Historically,  it  is 
well  known  that  the  object  of  this  clause  was  to 
secure  to  the  slaveholder  the  complete  right  and 
title  to  their  slaves  as  property  in  every  State 
into  which  they  might  escape,"  —  "  and  that  the 
full  recognition  of  this  right  was  so  vital  to  the 


212 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


slaveholding  States,  that  it  constituted  a  funda 
mental  article,  without  the  adoption  of  which 
the  Union  could  not  have  been  formed." 

It  is  quite  difficult  to  speak  of  these  two  para 
graphs  respectfully,  and  yet  with  that  fidelity 
to  truth  from  the  obligation  of  which  no  one 
can  absolve  himself,  —  that  fidelity  requires  me 
to  say,  that  no  greater  mistake,  as  to  undeniable 
historical  fact,  was  ever  committed,  than  is  em 
bodied  in  those  two  assertions. 

All  the  world  now  knows,  and  I  have  already 
shown,  with  what  painful  and  anxious  care  the 
framers  of  the  Convention  —  slaveholders  and 
all — Madison  and  Mason,  and  even  Randolph, 
the  special  and  ablest  advocate  of  the  slave- 
holding  interest  —  excluded  from  the  Constitu 
tion  the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in 
man. 

But,  again,  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that 
this  clause  was  deemed  vital  to  the  slaveholding 
interest,  that  it  was  not  even  named  in  the  Con 
vention  till  it  had  been  in  session  more  than 
three  months,  and  within  less  than  sixteen  days 
of  the  time  when  the  Constitution  was  reported 
complete ;  that  the  subject  was  never  men 
tioned  save  by  two  slaveholders  —  Butler  and 
Pinckney  ;  —  that  it  never  came  before  the 
Convention  except  on  two  succeeding  days ; 
that  the  whole  discussion  on  it  could  not  have 
occupied  ten  minutes;  that  no  complaint  was 
made  that  any  State  had  hitherto  refused  to 
surrender  fugitives ;  and  that  it  was  agreed  to 
nem.  con.  for  the  obvious  reason  that  it  only  em 
bodied  a  stipulation  to  continue  that  spirit  of 
comity  which  the  States  had  theretofore  volun 
tarily  observed  in  respect  to  the  same  matter. 
This  matter  was  in  no  sense  one  of  the  compro 
mises  of  the  Constitution,  and  was  never  hinted 
at  till  long  after  all  those  compromises  had  been 
definitely  settled ;  and  not,  indeed,  until  after 
all  the  provisions  deemed  essential  to  be  incor 
porated  in  the  Constitution  had  been  agreed  on, 
and  referred  to  a  committee  to  report  back  in 
due  form.  The  compromises  were  five :  — 

1.  Power  to  regulate  commerce. 

2.  Prohibition  of  duties  upon  exports. 

3.  Weight  to  be  assigned  to  the  States. 

4.  Basis  of  taxation  and  representation. 

5.  Power  to  prohibit  African  slave-trade. 
And  this  subject  had  nothing  to  do  with  either. 
Founding  myself  on  these  undeniable  facts,  I 
am  justified  in  affirming  that  the  assertion,  that 
the  adoption  of  this  clause  was  a  fundamental 
condition  of  the  Union,  has  no  foundation  what 
ever. 

THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  —  Mr.  Wolcott,  I  think 
you  have  omitted  one  statement  that  was  made 
in  the  Convention. 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  —  By  sheer  in 
advertence,  then,  if  your  Honor  please  ! 

CHIEF  JUSTICE —  Of  course,  sir;  but  there 
is  a  statement  which  I  think  you  will  find  has 
escaped  your  attention. 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  —  Possibly;  will 
your  Honor  please  mention  it  V 


THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  —  Mr.  Pinckney,  of 
South  Carolina,  said  he  would  not  vote  for  any 
Constitution  unless  it  protected  property  in 
slaves. 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL —  This  statement 
of  Pinckney  did  escape  my  attention.  But  the 
fact  that  no  one  went  with  Pinckney,  is  of  the 
last  significance.  I  do  not  understand  your 
Honor  to  say  that  there  was  any  one  save 
Pinckney  took  this  ground,  and  this  solitary  re 
mark  of  a  solitary  man  upon  a  solitary  occasion, 
certainly  furnishes  no  justification  for  the  broad 
assertion  of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  that  the  adoption 
of  such  a  provision  was  fundamental  to  the  for 
mation  of  the  Union. 

But  to  proceed.  Upon  this  twofold  mistake 
of  fact,  the  Court  assume  that  this  clause  must 
be  so  constructed  as  to  effect  the  object  errone 
ously  imputed  to  the  convention  in  adopting  it, 
and  so  they  affirm  'f  that  it  manifestly  contem 
plates  the  existence  of  a  positive  unqualified 
right  on  the  part  of  the  owner  of  the  slave, 
which  no  State  can  in  any  way  restrain,  qual 
ify,  or  control,"  and  that  any  State  law  or  State 
regulation,  which  interrupts,  limits,  delays,  or 
postpones  the  right  of  the  owner  to  the  imme 
diate  possession  of  the  slave,  and  the  immediate 
command  of  his  service  and  labor,  operates,  pro 
tanto,  a  discharge  of  the  slave  therefrom.  The 
question  can  never  be  how  much  the  slave  is 
discharged  from ;  but  whether  he  is  discharged 
from  any,  by  the  natural  or  necessary  operation 
of  State  laws  or  State  regulations.  The  ques 
tion  is  not  one  of  quantity  or  degree,  but  of 
withholding  or  controlling  the  incidents  of  a  pos 
itive  and  absolute  right 

Just  consider  this  proposition  for  a  moment. 
If  a  State,  undertaking  to  discharge  the  obliga 
tions  of  this  compact,  arrest  one  supposed  to  be 
a  fugitive,  gives  notice  to  the  supposed  master, 
and  when  he  comes,  says  to  him,  "  Sir !  we  have 
arrested  this  man  as  your  fugitive  slave,  and 
now  you  have  only  to  satisfy  us  that  he  is  your 
slave,  and  we  will  deliver  him  over  to  you ;  but 
we  can't  give  him  till  you  do  show  that"  This 
condition  of  delivery,  it  is  said,  "  operates  pro 
tanto  a  discharge,"  because  it  detains  him  from 
the  "immediate  possession  of  his  master."  You 
cannot,  it  is  said,  detain  a  man  claimed  as  a 
fugitive  slave,  even  to  inquire  whether  he  is  a 
slave  or  not ;  for  if  it  shall  turn  out  that  he  is 
such  slave,  then  you  have  been  discharging  him 
pro  tanto  from  the  service  and  labor  he  owes  his 
master !  Shall  I  stand  here  and  beat  the  air  ? 
Shall  I  waste  my  strength  and  your  Honors'  pa 
tience  over  such  a  proposition  as  this?  But 
this  is  the  foundation  of  the  conclusion  that  the 
States  have  no  right  to  legislate. 

But  again,  this  argument,  if  good  for  any 
thing,  cuts  up  by  the  roots  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  legislate.  No  one  will  pretend  or  admit 
that  Congress  has  any  more  power  to  discharge, 
absolutely  or  pro  tanto,  the  claim  of  the  master, 
than  have  the  States.  But  if  the  power  to  leg 
islate,  when  vested  in  the  States,  implies  the 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


213 


power  to  regulate,  that  is,  to  prescribe  condi 
tions,  so  also  does  the  like  power  when  vested 
in  Congress ;  and  if  the  provisions  of  a  State 
enactment,  requiring  the  master  to  prove  his 
claim  before  a  local  magistrate,  are,  pro  tanto, 
a  discharge,  so  also  are  the  provisions  requiring 
Jike  proof  before  a  commissioner  pro  tanto  a  dis 
charge  ;  and  if  the  one  is  for  that  reason  incom 
patible  with  the  Constitution,  so  equally  is  the 
other. 

Having  in  this  way  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  States  have  no  power  to  legislate,  the 
Court  next  proceed  once  more  to  affirm  "  that 
the  clause  puts  the  right  to  the  service  of  labor 
upon  the  same  ground  and  to  the  same  extent 
in  every  other  State  as  in  the  State  from  which 
the  slave  escaped,  and  in  which  he  was  held  to 
the  service  or  labor.  If  this  be  so,  then  all  the 
incidents  to  that  right  attach  also ;  the  owner 
must  therefore  have  the  right  to  seize  and  re 
possess  the  slave,  which  the  local  laws  of  his 
own  State  confer  upon  him,  as  property ;  and  we 
all  know  that  this  right  of  seizure  and  recap 
tion  is  universally  acknowledged  in  all  the 
slave-holding  States.  Indeed,  this  is  no  more 
than  a  mere  affirmance  of  the  principles  of  the 
common  law  applicable  to  this  very  subject." 

Then,  after  quoting  Blackstone,  he  proceeds : 

"  Upon  this  ground  we  have  not  the  slightest 
hesitation  in  holding,  that,  under  and  in  virtue 
of  the  Constitution,  the  owner  of  a  slave  is 
clothed  with  entire  authority,  in  every  State  in 
the  Union,  to  seize  and  recapture  his  slave 
whenever  he  can  do  it  without  any  breach  of 
the  peace,  or  any  illegal  violence.  In  this 
sense,  and  to  this  extent,  this  clause  of  the  Con 
stitution  may  properly  be  said  to  exclude  itself, 
and  to  require  no  aid  from  legislation,  State  or 
National." 

Now  of  this  monstrous  proposition  I  have  to 
say  again,  not  only  what  everybody  now  knows 
to  be  true  —  that  the  Constitution  nowhere  re 
cognizes  property  in  man,  and  therefore  no 
where  recognizes  the  right  of  private  recaption, 
which  is  incident  only  to  property —  but  that 
this  very  clause  affirmatively  excludes  all  pos 
sible  idea  of  such  recognition.  For  upon  whom 
does  this  clause,  by  its  very  terms,  operate  ? 
"  Persons,"  not  property  —  MEX,  not  chattels. 
Why,  if  this  man  whom  Bushneli  undertook  to 
rescue,  and  whom  Langston  undertook  to  res 
cue,  was  not  a  man,  a  "  PERSON,"  within  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  that  phrase,  then  he  is 
not  comprehended  by  this  clause ;  and  how  is 
it  that  they  have  been  indicted,  tried,  and  con 
victed  of  an  attempt  to  violate  this  clause  by 
rescuing  a  "  person  " —  so  the  indictment  calls 
the  fugitive  "John"  —  within  its  operation? 
I  know,  that  according  to  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
and  still  more  emphatically  by  this  very  Prigg 
case,  John  is  not  a  "  person,"  but  a  "  thing," 
—  for  this  Prigg  case  declares  his  status  in  the 
free  States  to  be  precisely  what  it  was  in  the 
slave  States.  But  in  the  slave  States,  John 
was  not  a  "  person,"  he  was  an  article  of  prop 


erty,  a  chattel,  and  nothing  else.  In  Ohio, 
then,  by  this  decision,  John  was  not  a  person  ; 
it  was  therefore  no  offence  to  rescue  him,  for 
the  fugitive  act  speaks  of  "  persons  "  only,  and 
these  applicants  having  committed  no  crime, 
must  be  discharged.  Thus,  this  Prigg  case,  in 
its  holding  that  an  escaping  slave  is  still  a  slave, 
as  he  was  in  the  slave  States,  falls  into  the  in 
evitable  absurdity  of  withdrawing  such  slaves 
from  the  operation  of  this  clause,  which  applies 
to  "  persons "  only.  Such  is  its  suicidal  con 
struction.  But  to  proceed. 

This  decision  to  the  contrary,  I  affirm  that 
John  was  a  "person"  here  —  still  owing  ser 
vice,  if  you  please,  to  his  former  master  in  Ken 
tucky,  but  yet  a  person  and  nothing  else.  The 
Federal  Constitution  calls  him  a  "  person,"  the 
fugitive  act  calls  him  a  "person,"  the  indict 
ments  now  before  your  Honors  call  him  a 
"  person,"  the  conviction  under  which  these 
applicants  are  confined  is  void  if  he  is  not  a 
"  person,"  and  most  of  all,  God  made  him  erect 
and  stamped  on  him  every  attribute  and  char 
acteristic  of  manhood.  The  laws  of  Kentucky 
may  deny  his  personality,  and  treat  him  as 
property,  but  these  laws  have  no  extra-territo 
rial  operation.  When,  therefore,  John  left 
Kentucky  he  left  that  local  status  which  the 
local  laws  alone  gave  him  while  there.  The 
laws  of  Kentucky  were  left  in  Kentucky,  for 
certainly  they  could  not  cross  the  Ohio  riv 
er.  The  moment,  then,  John  touched  Ohio 
he  became  invested  with  the  characteristics 
which  the  Constitution  of  this  State  and  the 
Federal  Constitution  impressed  upon  him,  with 
these  and  none  other,  since  these  alone  bear 
sway  on  the  soil  of  Ohio. 

How  do  these  regard  him  ?  The  Constitution 
of  Ohio  pronounces  him  a  man,  and,  save  as  to 
the  single  right  of  suffrage  ^and  even  that  he 
may  acquire  by  residence,  if  he  be  less  than 
half  black),  he  stands  here  on  an  equality  with 
the  Governor  of  your  State.  Subject  to  tho 
clause  in  question,  which  I  will  presently  con 
sider  —  he  nas  all  the  rights  and  is  entitled  to 
all  the  protection  which  our  laws  extend  to 
any  of  our  citizens.  He  may  sue  and  be  sued ; 
contract  and  be  contracted  with  ;  acquire,  hold 
and  enjoy  property  which  even  his  master  may 
riot  touch ;  give  and  be  given  in  marriage,  and 
rear  up  children  which,  thank  God,  are  all  his 
own.  How  does  the  Federal  Constitution  re 
gard  him  ?  Still  as  a  man,  a  "  person  "  but  as 
a  person  owing  labor  and  service  in  Kentucky, 
and  under  its  local  laws,  to  his  former  master. 
All  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
requires  is  that  Ohio  shall  not  discharge  this 
person  from  the  obligation  of  labor  and  service 
which  he  owed  in  Kentucky  under  its  laws, 
and  shall,  on  "  claim  "  of  the  party  to  whom, 
by  those  laws,  his  labor  is  due,  deliver  up  this 
"person" — this  man.  It  does  not  recognize 
the  fugitive  as  bound  to  labor  here  in  Ohio  for 
his  master,  but  as  still  owing  it  in  Kentucky, 
not  elsewhere,  and  it  requires  Ohio  to  deliver 


214 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


him  up,  that  he  may  bo  returned  to  Kentucky, 
and  there,  in  that  State  —  render  the  service 
which  he  owes  there  and  there  along. 

Like  Archilles,  he  is  invulnerable,  save  in  a 
single  spot.  Subordinate  only  to  the  single,  but 
awful  contingency  of  a  claim  properly  proven 
by  the  very  party  —  no  one  else  —  to  whom  in 
Kentucky  he  owed  service  ;  and  of  his  return 
to  the  condition  of  a  slave,  when  he  shall  again 
come  within  the  territorial  limits  of  that  State ; 
subject,  I  say,  to  this  one  awful  hazard,  John, 
in  Ohio,  was,  to  all  intent  and  purpose,  a  free 
man.  Thus,  this  right  of  recaption,  which  has 
no  existence,  save  as  against  slaves  in  the  slave 
States,  cannot  be  asserted  in  the  free  States. 
Here  this  point  might  be  left,  but  let  us  look  a 
little  farther  at  this  proposition  of  the  Prigg  case. 

The  master,  it  is  said,  has,  as  against  his 
escaping  slave  in  the  free  States,  "  the  same 
right,"  to  the  "  same  extent,"  and  with  "  all  the 
incidents "  which  he  had  under  the  local  laws 
of  the  State  from  which  the  slave  escaped.  So, 
then,  all  the  local  laws  of  all  the  slave  States, 
with  all  their  hideous  enginery  of  cruelty  and 
torture,  follow  a  slave  fleeing  into  Ohio ;  and 
upon  its  FREE  soil  do  all  these  slave  codes  bear 
supreme  sway?  The  same  right?  All  the 
incidents  ?  Never,  never !  The  very  first  inci 
dent  of  that  right,  nay,  the  very  essence  of  that 
right,  is  to  constrain  by  force  the  labor  of  the 
slave !  May  the  master  erect  the  whipping 
post  before  your  capitol,  and  use  the  lash  upon 
his  fugitive  woman  slave  in  Ohio,  if  she  refuse 
here  to  work  for  him?  Another  incident  of 
that  right  is,  to  brand  the  slave  or  slit  his  ears 
to  mark  him  as  his  property !  May  that  be 
done  in  Ohio  by  the  owner  of  a  runaway 
negro  ?  Another  incident  is,  that  on  the  rule 
of  partus  sequitur  ventrum,  the  offspring  of  a 
slave  mother  is  also  a  slave,  though  the  father 
be  free.  But  may  the  slave-owner  claim  as  his 
property  the  issue  of  a  fugitive  slave  woman 
who  was  here  intermarried  with  a  freeman  ? 
Still  another  incident  is  the  right  of  the  master 
to  sell  him  !  Can  he  open  a  slave  auction  here 
for  the  fugitive  ? 

Another  incident  is  the  right  by  the  law  of 
the  slave  States,  to  kill  the  slave  if  he  resist  by 
force  the  master's  attempt  to  punish  him  ? 
May  that  be  done  here  ?  Is  the  right  guaran 
teed  by  the  Constitution  to  the  master  to  MUR 
DER  in  Ohio  his  fugitive  slave  ?  Don't  let  it 
be  said  that  this  is  exaggeration.  For  by  pre 
cisely  the  same  process  by  which  you  establish 
here  the  right  of  recaption,  you  equally  estab 
lish  here  every  other  incident  of  this  system. 
No  matter  how  hideous  it  may  be.  Indeed, 
that  is  the  very  major  proposition,  for,  say  the 
Court,  the  master  has  here  "  the  same  right " 
as  to  a  runaway  slave,  which  he  had  in  the 
slave  States,  "  with  all  the  incidents  "  which  the 
local  law  gave,  that  local  law  (such  is  the  de 
duction)  confers  the  right  of  recaption,  there 
fore  that  right  exists  in  the  State  to  which  the 
slave  has  lied.  If  one  incident  given  by  the 


local  law  follows  the  fugitive  here,  so  do  all. 
What  some  of  these  incidents  are,  we  have 
seen.  Again,  I  say,  NEVER  !  We  won't  have 
the  whipping-post  in  Ohio.  We  won't  have 
the  knife,  and  the  branding-iron,  or  the  revolver 
here.  We  won't  have  the  barracoon  here. 
We  won't  legalize  murder  here.  If  a  slave 
holder  whip  his  fugitive  slave  in  Ohio,  it  is  a 
battery,  and  he  shall  go  to  jail  for  it.  If  he 
slit  his  ears,  it  is  maiming,  and  he  shall  go  to 
the  Penitentiary  for  it.  If  he  kill  the  slave  for 
resisting  the  lash  or  the  branding-iron,  it  is 
murder,  and  he  shall  hang  for  it,  though  there 
were  a  thousand  Prigg  cases,  as  Georgia  hung 
Graves  and  Tassells  over  the  writ  of  error  of 
this  same  Supreme  Court.  God  bless  Georgia 
for  that  valiant  and  beneficent  example ! 

And  here  I  leave  to  the  just  contempt  and 
just  indignation  of  all  freemen  this  hideous 
dogma  of  the  asserted  power  of  recaption.  It 
has  no  existence ;  and  this  point  is  of  vital  im 
portance,  for  Bushnell  is  convicted  only  of 
obstructing  an  attempt  at  a  mere  private  re-«. 
caption,  and  if  this  power  has  no  constitutional 
warrants,  then  Bushnell  is  unconstitution 
ally  restrained  of  his  liberty,  and  must  be  dis 
charged. 

The  next  proposition  of  the  Prigg  case  is, 
that  the  simple  right  of  recaption  must,  in  many 
instances,  prove  unavailing;  the  owner  may 
not  be  able  to  lay  his  hands  on  the  slave  ;  per-* 
sons  may  secrete  him;  local  legislation  'may 
limit  him  as  to  the  proofs  of  ownership  ;  or  the 
Courts  in  which  he  shall  sue  or  the  process  he 
may  resort  to,  or  fail  to  aid  him  in  any  way, 
so  that  it  is  said  if  the  Constitution  gave  nothing 
but  the  power  of  simple  recaption,  it  would 
prove  a  delusion  and  a  snare ;  and  the  infer 
ence  is  that  the  Congress  must  have  power  to 
legislate.  Now,  all  this  supposes  that  the  States 
would  wantonly  refuse  to  fulfil  their  solemn 
compact.  But  what  right  had  the  Court  thus 
to  insult  the  whole  community  of  free  States  ? 
What,  in  their  past  history,  justified  this  calum 
niation  ?  On  the  contrary,  I  say  that,  in  spite 
of  the  odious  nature  of  the  duty  which  this 
compact  imposed  upon  the  free  States,  they 
fulfilled  it  with  too  much  alacrity,  too  much, 
fidelity  —  too  few  safeguards  to  protect  the  cit 
izen,  until  this  very  Prigg  case  withdrew  the 
subject  from  their  control;  and  Congress,  fol 
lowing  its  lead,  endeavored  to  give  the  force  of 
law  to  an  act  which  not  merely  humbled  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States,  but  struck  down,  by 
a  single  blow,  all  the  constitutional  guaranties 
of  the  liberty  of  the  white  citizen ;  an  act 
which  no  man  can  read  without  the  utmost  in 
dignation. 

But,  again.  If  that  was  the  theory —  if  the 
Convention  did  not  mean  to  trust  to  the  legis 
lation  of  the  States,  just  as  little  would  they 
have  trusted  to  the  legislation  of  Congress, 
controlled  as  that  has  always  been,  in  one 
branch,  at  least,  by  the  Northern  States ;  and 
the  Constitution  itself  would  have  prescribed 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


215 


the  specific  mode,  and  leaving  nothing  to  the 
States  either  in  or  out  of  Congress. 

But  still,  again,  -when,  before,  was  the  falsely 
imputed  infidelity  of  the  States  made  the 
grounds  for  implying  in  Congress  power  to 
remedy  such  assumed  possible  or  probable  neg 
lects? 

And  how,  and  where,  in  the  Constitution,  do 
you  find  any  power  in  the  Congress  to  assume 
a  duty  belonging  to  the  States,  because  the 
States  refuse  to  discharge  it?  Nowhere  ! 

The  Court  next  proceed  to  assume  that  this 
clause  "  implies  at  once  a  guaranty,  and  enjoins 
a  duty,  that  it  contemplates"  some  remedial 
measure  "  beyond  the  rights  of  recaption ;  that 
many  questions  arise  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
Contemplated  remedy;  that  legislation  alone 
could  determine  these  questions ;  that  where  a 
duty  is  enjoined,  the  ability  to  execute  it  is  im 
plied  ;  that  the  "  clause  is  found  in  a  National 
Constitution,  not  that  of  a  State;"  that  "it 
does  not  point  out  any  State  functionaries  who 
shall  execute  it,"  and  that  "  the  natural,  if  not 
the  necessary  conclusion  "  is,  that  in  the  absence 
of  all  express  provision  to  the  contrary,  the 
General  Government  is  charged  with  the  exe 
cution  of  the  duty,  and  has  therefore  power  to 
execute  it. 

It  will  be  found  quite  difficult,  to  find,  else 
where,  a  course  of  reasoning  which  violates  so 
many  canons  of  constitutional  interpretation. 

It  not  only  starts  out  with  a  pure  assumption, 
(for  where  is  the  foundation  ?  the  assertion  im 
plies  a  guaranty  ?  and  who  is  the  guarantor, 
who  is  the  guarantee  ?  and  where  are  any 
words  of  guaranty  ?)  but  even  with  the  aid  of 
this  assumption,  can  it  derive  power  of  legisla 
tion  in  Congress,  only  by  a  series  of  implication 
of  not  less  than  four  successive  gradations,  in 
utter  contempt  of  its  own  settled  rule  that  the 
Congress  had  no  implied  power,  save  that  which 
is  purely  auxiliary  to  those  expressly  granted. 
For  see,  it  is  just  said  that  a  guaranty  and  a 
duty  is  implied  (implication  1)  ;  next,  that  the 
nature  of  the  duty  implies  the  necessity  of  leg 
islation  to  its  effective  discharge  (implication 
2)  ;  that,  as  the  States  arc  not  specially  named, 
and  the  clause  is  found  in  the  National  Consti 
tution,  it  is  to  be  implied  that  the  duty  is 
enjoined  upon  the  Federal  Government  (im 
plication  3) ;  that  a  duty  enjoined  implies  the 
power  to  execute  it  (implication  4) ;  and 
Bence  the  Congress  has  power  to  legislate  upon 
this  subject.  Need  I  stop  here  to  argue  that 
this  process  can  never  be  resorted  to  m  order 
to  create  a  power  in  the  Federal  Government, 
or  that  if  this  piling  of  implication  on  implica 
tion  is  permitted,  that  the  Federal  Government 
may  be  proved  to  have  power  over  every  con 
ceivable  object?  But  again,  the  great  step  in 
this  reasoning,  by  which  the  Court  attempts  to 
show  that  Congress  has  the  power,  consists  in 
the  assertion  that  because  the  clause  does  not 
specially  devolve  the  duty  on  the  States,  and 
designate  State  functionaries  for  its  discharge,  it 


is,  therefore,  to  be  intended  that  the  duty  is  to 
be  enjoined  upon  and  the  power  given  to  Con 
gress.  The  bare  fact  that  it  is  found  in  the 
Constitution  is  of  no  significance,  for  there  are 
many  provisions  there  which  do  not  grant 
power  to  Congress,  and  the  rule  is,  that  if 
power  be  not  given  in  terms,  it  is  not  given  at 
all.  Still  less  important,  that  it  does  not  point 
out  State  functionaries ;  for  if  the  States  them 
selves  were  to  execute  the  clause,  the  selection 
of  means  to  execute  must,  of  necessity,  be  left 
to  the  States  themselves.  But  neither,  on  tho 
other  hand,  does  it  point  out  Federal  function- 
aries ;  and  this  very  omission  is  of  stern  signifi-r 
cance,  and  conclusively  proves  that  it  is  tho 
States  who  are  to  execute  it ;  for  the  rule  of 
the  Constitution  itself  is,  that  all  agencies  and 
powers  not  granted  to  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  are  reserved  to  the  States  and  the  people. 
And  for  the  Court  to  assume  that  wherever 
State  authority  is  not  specially  mentioned,  Fed 
eral  authority  is  to  be  implied,  is  not  only  a  fla 
grant  violation  of  all  the  principles  heretofore 
asserted  by  itself,  but  a  plain  NULLIFICATION 
—  I  mean  just  what  that  word  imports  —  of  the 
tenth  amendment,  which  declares  all  powers 
not  delegated,  to  be  reserved  —  that  amendr 
ment  which  Jefferson  so  emphatically  and  so 
truly  said  was  the  "  foundation  corner  stone  of 
the  Constitution."  This  reasoning  of  the  Court 
I  also  leave  to  the  judgment  and  common  sense 
of  this  Court.  But  next :  — 

The  Court  next  proceeded  to  say  that  the 
"  claim  "  mentioned  in  this  clause  contemplated 
a  demand  "  made  by  the  owner  of  possession 
for  the  delivery  of  his  slave,"  and  must  of 
course  be  made  against  some  person  (I  add  pa* 
renthctically  that  it  must  be  against  the  slave 
himself,  since  usually  he  is  in  our  possession), 
that  this  claim  involves  "  a  right  of  property 
capable  of  assertion  in  a  Court  of  justice  be 
tween  adverse  parties ; "  so  that  it  "  constitutes 
in  the  strictest  sense  a  controversy  between  the 
parties,  and  a  *  case '  arising  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  within  the  express 
delegation  of  judicial  power  given  by  that  in 
strument."  "  Congress  then  may  call  that  pow 
er  into  activity "  so  as  to  "  give  effect  to  that 
right,"  and  "  if  so  may  prescribe  the  mode  and 
extent  to  which  it  may  be  applied,  and  how  and 
under  what  circumstances  the  proceedings  shall 
afford  a  complete  protection  and  guaranty  to 
the  right."  Still,  again,  implication  on  implica 
tion. 

Now  I  agree,  nay  I  insist  (and  I  mean  to 
prove  it  before  I  close),  that  the  claim  men 
tioned  in  this  clause  constitutes  a  controversy 
between  adverse  parties  —  not  as  to  a  right  of 
property,  but  a  right  of  liberty  —  the  master 
being  one  party,  the  alleged  fugitive  the  other, 
and  therefore  that  it  is  a  suit,  a  suit  at  law,  to 
be  determined  by  some  judicial  power.  Let 
this  point  in  the  Prigg  case  not  be  forgotten. 
But  I  stop  here.  I  do  not  agree  that  this  suit 
is  to  be  determined  by  the  Federal  judiciary, 


216 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


for  in  all  the  Constitution  I  find  no  power  over 
this  subject  granted  expressly  to  that  judiciary ; 
none  even  by  necessary  implication.  But  with 
out  stopping  now  to  controvert  this  at  length,  I 
have  to  say  that  this  position  proceeds  upon  the 
theory,  for  that  is  the  argument  of  the  Court, 
that  a  grant  of  power  to  the  Federal  Courts  to 
determine  certain  cases  implies  a  co-extensive 
power  in  the  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the 
subject-matter  of  all  these  cases.  Surely,  sure 
ly  this  cannot  be.  By  precisely  the  same  pro 
cess  of  reasoning,  heaping  inferred  power  on 
inferred  power,  the  Federal  Government  would 
soon  absorb  all  the  powers  of  all  the  States. 

Thus  jurisdiction  is  given  to  the  Federal 
Courts  over  suits,  and  appellate  jurisdiction 
over  the  State  Courts  in  certain  cases  between 
citizens  of  different  States.  The  subjects  of 
these  suits  are  as  various  as  litigation  itself,  land 
titles,  notes,  bills,  policies  of'insurance,  tres 
passes,  frauds,  matters  of  copartnership,  and  if 
a  power  of  legislation  over  these  subjects  can 
be  grafted  by  implication  upon  a  judicial  pow 
er,  Congress  may  assume  the  whole  power  of 
regulating  these  matters  within  the  States,  and 
accomplish  at  a  blow  the  overthrow  of  State 
sovereignty. 

Whatever  power  the  Federal  Judiciary  may 
have  over  this  subject  is  preventive,  not  active 
—  to  restrain,  not  compel.  If  a  State  should 
by  legislation  attempt  to  emancipate  all  fugitive 
slaves  within  its  limits,  perhaps  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  exercising  its  ap 
pellate  jurisdiction,  might  declare  such  hostile 
legislation  void,  so  far  as  respected  the  rights  of 
the  parties  to  the  case  then  before  it  for  adjudi 
cation.  But  this  is  the  utmost  scope  of  its  pow 
er,  —  and,  as  for  Congress,  that  I  have  shown 
has  none.  The  truth  is  that  whatever  power 
the  Federal  Government  has  in  this  class  of 
cases,  if  indeed  it  have  any,  is  just  the  power 
of  the  judiciary  of  determining  any  case  in 
•which  the  question  of  the  validity  of  unfriend 
ly  State  legislation  may  be  involved ;  and,  sec 
ond,  power  in  Congress  to  provide  an  avenue 
by  which  such  a  case  may  reach  the  Federal 
tribunals ;  but  not  all  power  to  legislate  upon 
the  subject-matter  of  the  litigation. 

In  fine,  of  this  whole  opinion,  it  may  be  said 
that  all  of  its  reasoning  consists  either  in  an 
unfounded  and  pure  assumption  of  the  very 
question  to  be  decided ;  or  if  the  premise  does 
not,  in  every  instance,  go  to  quite  the  length  of 
begging  the  entire  question,  it  does  in  every 
instance  assume  as  its  predicate  some  position 
false  in  fact  or  false  in  logic,  and  even  upon 
this  unstable  basis  is  driven  to  the  accumulation 
of  implication  on  implication,  in  order  to  show 
power  in  Congress. 

The  argument  of  the  Court  next  becomes 
again  historical,  and  a  most  unfortunate  attempt 
is  made  to  show  that  contemporary  construction 
and  continued  usage  have  practically  settled 
the  question  in  the  same  way. 

And,  first,  the  Act  of  1793  is  cited,  which,  it 


is  said,  was  passed  immediately  after  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution  by  Congress,  composed 
in  part  at  least  of  its  framers,  has  since  been 
uniformly  acquiesced  in  and  executed  by  the 
States. 

But  of  this  I  have  just  to  remark,  first,  that 
this  act  did  little  more  than  organize  the  States 
themselves  to  execute  their  constitutional  duties 
under  this  compact,  that  the  cases  which  arose 
were  only  few  in  number,  that  though  objection 
able  in  some  of  its  features,  it  was  not  oppres 
sively  enforced,  that  it  had  none  of  the  infa 
mous  provisions  which  characterize  the  Dra 
conian  Act  of  1850,  so  that  public  attention 
was  not  roused,  and  that  since  the  execution  of 
the  act  was  thus  mainly  left  to  the  States  them 
selves  they  might  well  acquiesce  in  it,  not  as 
having  any  binding  force,  but  as  furnishing  a 
convenient  mode  of  performing  a  duty  which 
they  had  stipulated  to  discharge. 

Again,  however,  this  contemporaneous  con 
struction  and  long  usage  prove  entirely  too 
much,  for  so  far  were  the  States  from  supposing 
that  they  had  no  power  over  this  subject,  that 
most  of  them  legislated  upon  this  very  point. 

If  the  fact  that  Congress  passed  the  Act  of 
'93  is  of  any  weight  as  touching  the  construc 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  surely  the  contempora 
neous  action  of  State  Legislatures  is  entitled  to 
no  less  weight.  Now  every  slave  State,  at  an 
early  period,  passed  laws  providing  for  the  sur 
render  of  slaves  escaping  from  other  States  into 
our  limits. 

Nor  were  the  free  States  themselves  unmind 
ful  of  this  obligation;  nor  odious  as  was  the 
duty,  did  they  seek  to  shelter  themselves  from 
its  performance  behind  the  miserable  pretence 
that  they  had  no  power. 

Thus  Connecticut  enacted  an  extradition 
law  upon  this  subject.  New  York,  New  Jer 
sey,  Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  each 
passed  one,  and  perhaps  each  of  the  other 
States,  though  as  to  them  I  have  no  knowledge. 
Ohio,  too,  responding  to  the  request  of  Ken 
tucky,  presented  in  a  most  imposing  form, 
enacted  a  most  stringent  statute  in  fulfilment  of 
this  compact.  The  contemporaneous  construc 
tion  and  usage  of  the  States  then  prove  that 
the  power  belonged,  not  to  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  but  to  the  States. 

But  still  more,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  again  and  again  ruled  that 
no  part  of  the  power  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  judicial,  legislative,  or  executive,  could 
be  devolved  on  State  legislators,  State  judges, 
or  State  ministerial  officers.  Nay,  in  this  very 
Prigg  case  it  was  established,  if  any  thing  was, 
that  Congress  had  no  power  to  compel  State 
authorities  to  execute  the  duties  imposed  on 
them  by  the  Act  of  '93,  and  if  no  power  to  com 
pel,  then  it  has  no  authority  to  devolve  the 
duty  on  them;  for  authority  to  prescribe  a 
duty  implies  power  to  enforce  its  discharge. 
Now  the  only  feature  of  the  Act  of  '93  which 
had  any  efficiency,  the  only  one,  therefore, 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


217 


which  was  generally  called  into  action,  was 
that  which  devolved  its  execution  on  State 
judges  and  State  officers.  ^  The  only  usage 
under,  and  acquiescence  in  its  provisions,  was 
in  that  provision  which  enjoined  powers  on 
State  authorities.  But  in  this  respect,  say  the 
Court  in  this  identical  case,  the  Act  of  '93,  the 
contemporaneous  exposition,  the  usage  and  long 
acquiescence  prove  nothing.  In  spite  of  all  i 
these,  we  now  affirm  that  Congress  had  no  au- 1 
thority  to  devolve  the  execution  of  this  power 
on  State  authorities.  If  contemporaneous  con 
struction  and  usage  can't  prove  that  a  supposed 
power  has  been  rightfully  exercised,  still  less,  I 
submit,  can  this  judicially  condemned  exposi 
tion  and  acquiescence  be  used  to  prove  the 
very  existence  of  the  power.  Here,  then,  the 
argument  drawn  from  this  source  is  shattered 
to  fragments  by  this  very  Prigg  case,  though  in 
the  same  breath  cited  by  it  as  authority,  and  is 
buried  beyond  the  reach  of  resurrection.  Let 
no  one  who  respects  that  tribunal,  or  who  re 
spects  the  dead  seek  again  to  invoke  its  false 
and  ghastly  presence.  But  the  decisions  of  the 
State  courts  which  I  have  already  criticized,  arc 
next  cited  by  the  Court  to  fortify  its  conclusion. 
But  as  we  have  seen,  the  question  in  each  of 
these  cases  was  solely  as  to  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  confer  this  power  and  impose  this 
duty  on  State  authorities,  and  the  one  point 
decided  by  them  was  that  Congress  had  that 
very  power. 

These  very  cases  are  overruled,  therefore, 
distinctly  by  this  same  Court,  not  only  in 
Martin's  Lessee  y.  Hunter,  but  in  this  identical 
Prigg  case,  and  yet  the  Court,  while  in  the 
very  act  of  so  overruling  them  upon  the  only 
point  affirmed  by  them,  cites  them  as  authority 
for  its  own  opinions.  Let  the%e  cases,  slain  by 
the  same  relentless  hand  —  be  buried,  too,  in 
the  same  grave  where  their  kindred  —  "  contem 
poraneous  exposition  and  long  usage,"  now 
sleep  their  last  sleep. 

I  have  thus  considered  every  position  upon 
which  the  obiter  dicta  in  the  Prigg  case  are 
founded.  As  authority  it  has  no  weight  what 
ever.  How  far  will  your  Honors  deem  it  pru 
dent  voluntarily  to  commit  yourselves  to  its 
opini6ns ;  for  you  must  do  it  voluntarily  if  at 
all  ?  Let  the  result  answer. 

With  a  few  more  words  which  seem  needful 
to  its  just  appreciation,  I  take  leave  of  that  case 
forever. 

While  all  the  judges  concurred  in  reversing 
the  judgment  of  the  Court  below,  yet  Bald 
win,  J.,  did  so  only  on  the  ground  that  the 
verdict  found  Margaret  to  have  been  a  slave ; 
and  the  owner  could  not  be  punished  as  a  kid 
napper  in  reclaiming  her.  He  dissented  from 
the  obiter  that  the  States  had  no  power,  or  that 
Congress  had  any  to  legislate  upon  this  subject. 
This  left  only  eight  judges,  of  whom  five  held 
that  the  power  was  vested  exclusively  in  Con 
gress;  while  three  (Taney,  Thompson,  and 
McLean,)  held  that  it  was  concurrent  in  the 

28 


States.  But  of  the  four  who  held  it  was 
exclusive,  three  delivered  separate  opinions, 
each  stating  that  he  could  not  concur  in  the 
reasoning  by  which  his  brethren  had  arrived  at 
that  result;  of  the  three  who  held  that  the 
States  had  concurrent  power,  each  delivered 
separate  opinions,  differing  from  his  brethren 
in  its  reasoning ;  while  of  the  eight  who  thought 
Congress  had  power,  either  exclusive  or  con 
current,  six  delivered  distinct  opinions,  each 
one  demonstrating  that  the  principles  upon 
which  the  others  place  their  opinion  are  alto 
gether  wrong.  Thus  five  arrive,  each  in  his 
own  separate  way,  at  the  result  that  this  clause 
enjoins  a  duty  on  Congress,  and  then  upon  the 
principle  that  where  duty  exists,  power  to  exe 
cute  is  implied  —  and  that  is  their  main  argu 
ment —  hold  that  the  power  is  in  Congress; 
while  the  other  three,  each  in  his  own  mode, 
arrive  at  the  opposite  result,  namely,  that  the 
Constitution  enjoins  this  precise  duty  on  the 
States.  These  latter  three  thus  demolish  the 
position  on  which  the  other  five  erect  their 
argument ;  while  the  logic  of  the  five  applied 
to  the  premise  of  the  three  —  that  this  duty  is 
enjoined  on  the  States — destroys  utterly  the 
common  conclusion  of  the  whole  eight,  by 
demonstrating  that  the  power  belongs"  exclu 
sively  to  the  States.  And  this  obiter  opinion, 
which,  beginning  with  a  gross  mistake  as  to  the 
facts  of  history,  without  persisting  in  which  its 
conclusion  cannot  be  sustained,  and  proceeding 
on  this  mistake  to  erect  a  fabric  of  reasoning 
which  utterly  overthrows  every  rule  of  consti 
tutional  interpretation  hitherto  declared  to  be 
unalterable ;  which  ignores  the  maxims  that 
every  presumption  is  to  be  made  in  favor  of 
liberty;  which  not  only  overrules  the  authori 
ties  on  which  it  assumes  to  rely  for  support, 
but  in  which  each  judge  who  aided  in  declar 
ing  it,  is  pronounced  by  his  brethren  to  have 
been  wholly  wrong  in  his  reasons  for  so  declar 
ing  it,  thus  literally  devouring  itself —  this 
extra-judicial  opinion,  it  is  now  said,  has 
"  settled "  the  rights  of  thirty-three  States,  and 
grave  questions  touching  the  liberties  of  twenty- 
three  millions  of  people.  HAS  IT  ?  But  I  am 
reminded  that  the  Prigg  case  has  since  been 
twice  affirmed  by  this  same  Court  in  the  Jones 
and  Van  Zandt,  and  the  Booth  case.  Of 
course  it  has.  Did  anybody  knowing  how  that 
Court  is  constituted  (and  I  must  allude  to  that 
presently)  expect  them  to  do  ought  but  affirm 
it  ?  Did  n't  they  decide  the  Dred  Scott  case 
too  ?  Now  how*  did  they  affirm  it  ?  When 
these  two  subsequent  cases  came  before  them 
and  in  one  of  them  the  obiter  of  the  Prigg  case 
was  utterly  demolished  by  counsel,  did  the 
Court  again  consider  the  question  according  to 
the  invariable  custom,  where  a  question  de 
pends  on  a  single  decision,  which  is  assailed*? 
No !  but  seizing  hold  of  the  extra-judicial  opin 
ions  in  the  Prigg  case,  they  say  adroitly,  if  not 
truly;  that  decides  the  question;  thus  giving 
their  own  simple  obiter  the  force  of  an  abso- 


218 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


lutely  conclusive  adjudication  I  This  is  res 
adjudicata  With  a  vengeance. 

These,  may  it  please  your  Honors,  are  the 
cases  in  which  this  question  has  been  considered 
by  the  highest  Federal  Court  Before,  how 
ever,  taking  leave  of  that  Court,  there  is  one 
consideration  affecting  the  weight  which  ought 
to  be  given  to  its  opinions,  on  this  class  of  ques 
tions.  It  pains  me  that  the  fact  to  which  I  am 
about  to  allude  is  so ;  but  my  sense  of  duty  will 
not  allow  me  entirely  to  suppress  it. 

When  the  extra-judicial  opinion  of  any  Court 
is  passed  upon  me  as  foreclosing  by  its  simple 
assertion  any  question  which  concerns  the  sov 
ereignty  of  the  State,  or  the  natural  and  consti 
tutional  right  of  the  citizen,  I  cannot  refrain 
from  considering  the  claim  to  confidence  which 
the  dictum  of  its  individual  members  might  pos 
sess.  My  inquiry  would  not  be  limited  to  their 
learning  and  ability,  but  I  should  ask  of  the 
school  of  government,  in  which  they  had  been 
trained ;  of  their  personal  independence  ;  of 
their  freedom  from  bias  or  extra-judicial  influ 
ences  ;  and  of  their  general  fidelity  to  the  great 
principles  which  underlie  all  free  governments. 
Let  me,  then,  barely,  and  with  as  much  reserve 
as  the  truth  will  permit,  allude  to  the  manner  in 
which  this  Court  is  constituted ;  giving  voice 
only  to  what  is  in  every  man's  head,  and  on 
every  man's  tongue,  when  the  relations  of  this 
Court  to  any  question  connected  with  slavery  are 
mentioned.  How,  then,  is  this  Court  constitu 
ted  ?  Five  of  the  nine  Judges  who  compose  it 
are  themselves  slaveholders,  and  therefore,  di 
rectly  and  personally  interested  in  all  these 
questions.  The  other  four  are  selected  from 
the  Free  States,  but  upon  what  motives  and 
by  what  influences  are  these  selections  gov 
erned  ?  Let  one  or  two  well  known  facts  an 
swer.  .  -  -..,.-•  :>-•• 

During  the  administration  of  President  Tyler, 
Mr.  Justice  Thompson,  then  resident  in  Now 
York,  a  very  able  and  learned  Judge  of  that 
Court,  died.  As  his  successor,  the  President 
first  nominated  John  C.  Spencer,  also  of  New 
York,  one  of  the  most  learned,  able,  and  emi 
nent  jurists  ill  this  or  any  other  country.  The 
Senate  did  not  confirm  the  nomination  of  Spen 
cer.  Why  ?  The  President  next  sent  in  the 
name  of  that  accomplished  judge,  Chancellor 
Walworth,  the  man,  be  it  remembered,  who,  as 
Chancellor  of  the  State  of  New  York,  had,  many 
years  before,  when  the  case  of  Jack  against 
Martin  was  before  the  Court  of  Errors  of  that 
State,  declared  that  the  Congress  had  no 
power  to  provide  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitive 
slaves. 

Of  Walworth's  fitness,  there  could  be  no 
manner  of  question.  The  Senate  did  not  con 
firm  the  nomination  of  Walworth.  Again,  why  ? 
President  Tyler  then  nominated  Mr.  Justice 
Nelson,  who,  when  this  same  case  of  Jack  against 
Martin,  was  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  New 
York,  had,  as  one  of  the  judges  thereof,  deliv 
ered  an  elaborate  opinion  in  which  he  affirmed 


that  Congress  had  exclusive  power  to  legislate 
for  the  delivery  of  fugitives  from  service!  Of 
Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  it  is  no  disrespect  to  say 
that  in  none  of  the  qualities  which  go  to  make 
up  the  great  judge,  would  either  Spencer  or 
Walworth  suffer  by  any  comparison  with  him, 
The  Senate  did  confirm  Justice  Nelson.  Still 
again,  why  ? 

These  undeniable  facts  warrant  me  in  declar 
ing,  as  I  do  here  and  now  emphatically  declare, 
that  this  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
is  a  sectional  court,  composed  of  sectional  men, 
judging  sectional  questions  upon  sectional  influ* 
ences.  And  here  I  take  leave  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  and  its  opinions  *nr 
the  question. 

Still  again,  however,  it  is  said  that  some  o/ 
the  State  Courts  have,  since  the  Prigg  decision, 
declared  their  adherence  to  it.  This  is  true, 
but  every  one  has  so  adhered  on  the  assumption 
that  the  questions  discussed  in  that  case  were 
res  adjudicata.  How  unfounded  that  assump* 
tion  was  we  have  seen.  These  cases  all  rer 
volve  about  the  Prigg  case,  leaning  on  that  for 
support,  not  fortifying  it ;  and  if  that  can't  stand 
alone,  these  must  fall  with  it.  r~ 

Let  us  sum  up,  now,  the  authority  relied  on 
to  support  the  power  of  Congress.  Three  or 
four  cases  in  the  State  Courts  prior  to  the  Prigg 
case,  and  virtually  overruled  by  that ;  then  the 
case  of  Prigg ;  then  the  cases  of  Van  Zandt 
and  Booth,  and  a  few  cases  in  the  State  Courts  j 
but  every  case  standing  on  the  pretended  aur 
thority  of  Prigg  alone. 

Now,  if,  instead  of  these  few  scattering  cases, 
resting  on  a  single  extra-judicial  assertion,  -»- 
mistaken  in  its  facts  and  erroneous,  in  its  law,  — 
and  on  an  intermittent  usage  pronounced  to  be 
wholly  wronj*,  \  had  found  a  thousand  cases, 
and  the  continuous,  unbroken  usage  of  centu 
ries,  I  should  still  insist  that  the  question  was 
not  settled ;  if,  upon  examining  the  settlement, 
it  was  clearly  proved  to  be  wrong.  I  repeat, 
again,  that  no  question  which  concerns  the  lib 
erties  of  the  citizen  can  be  settled  till  it  is  set 
tled  exactly  right.  The  pathway  of  judicial 
history  is  strewn  with  wreck  upon  wreck  of  de 
cisions,  and  with  the  broken  fragments  of  usage 
on  usage,  by  which  Power  has  attempted  —  and 
though  successful  for  a  time  —  vainly  attempted 
to  fetter  or  undermine  the  rights  of  property, 
liberty,  and  life. 

In  adverting  to  this  subject,  I  cannot  forget 
that  the  raising  of  ship-money  was  practised  for 
years,  and  the  validity  of  that  practice  recog 
nized  time  and  again  by  Courts,  till  the  days  of 
Hampden,  when  its  illegality  was  so  strongly 
demonstrated  that  the  same  Courts,  composed 
of  different  judges,  were  obliged  to  decide  that, 
in  spite  of  usage  and  precedent,  the  power  was 
an  usurpation  of  the  ancient  and  undoubted 
privileges  of  Parliament.  I  remember,  too,  that 
General  Warrants,  though  plainly  prohibited 
by  Mayna  Charta,  had  been  constantly  resorted 
to  in  every  reign  of  every  king  for  centuries  $ 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


219 


that,  upon  elaborate  argument  and  considera 
tion,  all  the  English  Courts  had,  by  a  series  of 
decisions,  which  you  can  almost  count  by  the 
score,  judicially  a'ffirmed  their  lawfulness,  until 
Sir  John  Pratt,  afterwards  Lord  Camden,  by 
his  great  judgment  in  the  case  of  Wilkes,  over 
turned  from  its  foundations  this  usage,  hoary 
-with  the  age  of  centuries,  entrenched  behind 
almost  countless  precedents,  and  in  a  single  mo 
ment,  forever  established  for  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race  an  unalterable  exemption  from  the  exer 
cise  of  this  arbitrary  power.  More,  and  most  of 
all,  I  remember  that,  though  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had,  from  the  very  foundation  of 
the  government,  and  for  an  uninterrupted  pe 
riod  of  sixty  years,  asserted  and  exercised  the 
power  of  legislating  for  the  territories ;  though 
every  President,  from  Washington  to  and  in 
cluding  Polk,  had  officially  approved  its  exer 
cise  ;  though  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  had  by  a  solemn  and  unanimous  Judg 
ment,  pronounced  by  the  revered  Marshall,  af 
firmed  the  undoubted  existence  of  this  power, 
and  though,  during  all  this  time,  no  man  had 
hinted  a  doubt  as  to  its  validity,  yet  we  all  saw 
in  this  same  Supreme  Court  the  temple  of  free 
dom,  which,  by  the  exercise  of  this  power,  we 
had  been  almost  twice  forty  years  in  building, 
torn  down  in  a  single  day !  No,  —  I  am  wrong. 
It  was  not  torn  down,  but  only  not,  because  of 
the  impotence  of  these  judges  to  shake  its  sta 
ble  base.  And  now,  when  I  am  pressed  with 
any  decision  of  that  court  as  concluding  any 
right  of  the  citizen,  I  reply  simply  and  only, — 
u  Dred  Scott !  "  Shall  that  Court  extort  more 
respect  for  its  decisions  than  itself  yields  to 
them  ?  If  so  much  usage  and  precedent  may 
be  overturned  in  the  interest  of  slavery,  surely, 
surely,  an  extra-judicial  opinion  may  be  well 
disregarded  in  the  interest  of  constitutional  lib 
erty. 

If,  then,  your  Honors,  looking  to  the  text  of 
the  Constitution,  shall  be  clearly,  decisively  sat 
isfied  that  the  Congress  has  no  power  to  legis 
late  in  aid  of  the  reclamation  of  fugitives  from 
service  —  and  that,  I  submit,  has  been  demon 
strated  —  then,  in  the  name  and  by  the  au 
thority  of  that  Constitution,  the  SUPREME  LAW, 
binding  alike  Judges  and  Presidents  and  Con 
gresses  by  its  absolute  power,  I  invoke  of  your 
Honors  —  nay,  I  might  not  improperly  demand 
--  the  restoration  of  these  applicants  to  that 
liberty  of  which  they  are  now  restrained  only 
by  a  flagrant  usurpation,  on  the  part  of  the 
federal  Government,  of  the  undelegated  power 
distinctly  reserved  to  the  States. 

And  here,  if  my  own  personal  convenience 
alone  was  consulted,  I  should  leave  this  case. 
Perhaps  it  ought  to  be  left  here ;  but  the  appli 
cation  involves  other  questions  of  the  gravest 
moment,  which  it  seems  to  be  my  duty  yet  to 
consider. 

My  next  proposition  is,  that  if — against,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  all  human  probability  and  rea 
son  —  your  Honors  shall  be  of  opinion  that  Con 


gress  has  some  power  to  legislate  upon  this  mat 
ter,  still,  the  act  of  1850  is  in  its  essence  and 
structure,  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  And 
now  I  go  back  again  to  the  clause  itself,  which 
provides  "that  the  fugitive  person  who  owes  la 
bor  or  service,  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  labor  or  service  is  due." 
By  the  preceding  section,  a  fugitive  person  who 
is  simply  cliarged  with  crime  is  to  be  delivered 
up.  Here,  the  person  who  is  to  be  delivered  up 
is  not  a  person  who  is  charged  with  owing  labor 
or  service,  but  only  one  who  in  very  fact,  owes 
it.  The  first  condition  of  delivery  then,  is,  that 
he  owes  labor  and  service ;  the  second,  that  he 
has  escaped.  When  is  he  to  be  delivered  up  ? 
Of  course,  not  until  it  is  shown  that  he  owes 
that  labor  or  service.  How  is  the  delivery  to 
be  made  ?  On  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  that 
labor  or  service  is  due.  Here,  then,  are  three* 
questions  of  fact  to  be  determined  before  the 
obligation  to  deliver  becomes  operative.  1st. 
That  the  person  owes  labor  and  service.  2d. 
That  he  has  escaped;  and  3d.  That  he  owes 
such  labor  or  service  to  the  very  person  who  de 
mands  his  delivery.  But  how  is  the  existence 
of  these  conditions  to  be  ascertained  ?  Why  a 
claim  that  such  service  or  labor  is  due  must  be 
first  made,  and  the  claimant  is  denominated  by 
the  Constitution  itself  a  "party."  But  the 
claim  —  and  I  here  quote  from  the  Wisconsin 
case  —  must  be  made  of  some  one,  and  ordina 
rily  can  be  made  only  of  the  fugitive  himself, 
who,  if  he  resists,  becomes  the  other  party.  If 
he  really  owes  labor  and  service  to  the  party 
and  has  escaped,  he  must  be  delivered.  If  this 
claim  is  unfounded,  or  he  has  not  escaped,  he 
cannot  be  delivered  up.  Now,  what  can  be 
plainer  than  that  here  is  suspended  a  legal 
right,  upon  issues  of  fact  and  law  ?  That  the 
determination  of  these  issues  involves  the  ex 
ercise  of  judicial  power,  and  that  consequently 
here  is  a  suit  or  action  to  be  tried  ?  The  Con 
stitution  itself  has  arranged  the  issue  and  made 
up  the  parties.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  otates  has  itself  passed  upon  this  very 
point  twice.  In  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat. 
407,  they  define  a  suit  "to  be  the  prosecution 
of  some  claim,  demand,  or  request "  —  and  in 
this  very  Prigg  case,  as  we  have  seen,  they  rule 
that  this  "claim,"  whenever  made,  constitutes 
"  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  controversy  between 
the  parties,  and  a  case  within  the  judicial 
power." 

The  power,  therefore,  to  adjudicate  upon  this 
"claim,  to  decide  this  "case"  is  — the  Su 
preme  Court  itself  being  witness — an  exercise 
of  the  judicial  power — and  if  exercised  under 
the  Federal  Government,  of  the  judicial  power 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  Constitution  in 
terms,  ordains  that  the  whole  judicial  power  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  one  Su 
preme  Court  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the 
Congress  may  from  time  to  time  ordain  and  es 
tablish  —  that  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  and 
inferior  courts  shall  hold  their  offices  during 


220 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


good  behavior,  and  shall  at  stated  times  receive 
for  their  services  a  compensation  which  shall 
not  be  diminished  during  their  continuance  in 
office."  And  in  Martin's  Lessee  v.  Hunter,  the 
Supreme  Court  held  that  the  power  here  given 
was  the  whole  judicial  power,  and  that  Con 
gress  had  no  authority  to  vest  any  part  of  it 
elsewhere  than  in  courts  constituted  of  judges 
holding  their  offices  by  this  tenure.  The  act  of 
1850,  however,  attempts  to  vest  some  portion  of 
this  very  judicial  power  (so  held  to  be  by  the 
Supreme  Court),  in  certain  officers  called  com 
missioners.  But  these  commissioners  are  unde 
niably  not  "judges,"  within  the  language  and 
plain  meaning  of  the  Constitution.  A  commis 
sioner  does  not  hold  his  office  during  good  be 
havior,  but  at  the  will  of  the  circuit  court  which 
appointed  him,  and  he  does  not  at  stated  times 
receive  a  fixed  compensation,  but  is  paid  by 
fees,  getting  (O  shame !)  thrice  as  much  from 
the  claimant  if  he  decides  for  him  as  if  he  de 
cides  against  him.  To  this  extent,  then,  the 
act  of  '50  is  a  clear  violation  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  This  point  is  fairly  before  the  court,  if  it 
shall  fail  to  recognize  the  power  of  private  re 
caption  ;  (and  who  can  doubt  that  V)  for  then 
the  only  offence  charged  against  Langston 
is  that  of  resisting  the  process  of  a  commis 
sioner. 

But  I  proceed  to  a  still  more  serious  objec 
tion.  The  Constitution  by  one  of  its  amend 
ments  declares  that  "no  person  (mark  that 
word  '  person  '),  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  lib 
erty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law." 
What  do  these  words,  "  due  process  of  law," 
mean  ?  What  did  they  mean,  when  they  were 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution  ?  They 
meant  the  trial  of  any  right  asserted  against 
a  man's  liberty,  life,  or  property,  by  a  regularly 
constituted  judicial  tribunal,  sitting  in  the  light 
of  day,  proceeding  after  established  rules,  con 
fronting  the  man  with  the  witnesses  against  him, 
securing  to  him  the  right  of  cross-examination, 
and  due  opportunity  to  produce  evidence  in  his 
own  behalf. 

That  is  what  the  words, "  due  process  of  law," 
mean.  It  was  what  they  meant  in  Magna 
Charta,  for  there  they  were  first  used.  But  in 
spite  of  Magna  Charta,  it  was  the  practice  of 
English  sovereigns,  backed  up  by  the  servility 
of  English  Judges,  down  to  the  revolution  of 
1688,  to  seize  men  and  try  them  before  irregu 
lar  tribunals,  unknown  to  the  common  law,  such 
as  the  Star  Chamber,  and  which  proceeded  in 
secret,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  accused.  Or 
not  unfrequently,  when  a  man  became  obnox 
ious  to  the  Crown,  it  would  appoint  commis 
sioners,  constituting  irregular  courts,  not  the 
regular  courts  of  the  common  law,  with  stated 
terms,  but  often  commissioned  to  try  a  specifi 
cally-named  person,  and  they  went  down  and 
tried  the  case  in  secret,  without  a  jury,  without 
confronting  witnesses,  without  the  presence  of 
the  accused,  and  upon  ex  parte  evidence  would 
take  away  his  property,  liberty,  and  life,  and 


attaint  his  blood.  Bight  here  let  me  ask,  Will 
some  one  tell  how  the  function  of  the  commis 
sioners  and  their  manner  of  proceeding  differs 
in  kind  or  degree  from  that  of  the  commission 
ers  under  the  Fugitive  Act  ? 

It  was  in  consequence  of  these  arbitrary  pro 
ceedings,  by  which  this  great  barrier  of  the 
subject  against  the  usurpations  of  the  sovereign 
had  been  broken  down,  that  it  was  again  de 
clared  in  the  Petition  of  Right  during  the  time 
of  the  first  Charles,  and  still  again  affirmed  in 
the  "  Bill  of  Rights"  at  the  revolution  in  1688. 
This  great  provision  was  obviously  intended  to 
protect  Englishmen  against  such  arbitrary  se 
cret  ex  parte  proceedings  ;  and  it  was  put  into 
the  Constitution,  by  way  of  amendment,  to  pro 
tect  all  men  against  the  same  thing  here.  "  Due 
process  of  law,"  then,  means  that  careful, 
guarded,  precise,  and  strict  proceeding  known 
to  the  English  law,  which  is  had  in  open  and 
regularly  constituted  Courts,  and  which  secures 
to  every  person  due  means  and  opportunity  of 
defending  his  life,  liberty,  and  property.  But 
we  are  not  without  judicial  authority  on  this 
point. 

"  The  better  and  larger  definition  of  due  pro 
cess  of  law,"  says  Kent,  "  is,  that  it  means  law 
in  its  regular  course  of  administration,  through 
courts  of  justice." 

"  The  law  of  the  land" —  (which  is  always 
held  equivalent  to  due  process  of  law~)  —  "  in 
bills  of  right,"  says  Chief  Justice  Ruffm,  of 
North  Carolina,  in  the  elaborate  opinion  deliv 
ered  in  Hoke  v.  Henderson,  4  Dev.  N.  C.  Rep. 
15  (and  one  replete  with  sound  Constitutional 
doctrines),  "  does  not  mean  merely  an  act  of 
the  legislature,  for  that  construction  would  ab 
rogate  all  restrictions  on  legislative  authority. 
The  clause  means,  that  statutes  which  would 
deprive  a  citizen  *  —  (in  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  the  word  is  "  person  ")  —  "  of  the  rights  of 
person  or  property,  without  a  regular  trial,  ac 
cording  to  the  course  and  usage  of  the  common 
law,  would  not  be  the  law  of  the  laud  in  the 
sense  of  the  Constitution." 

The  Constitution,  then,  intended  to  secure  to 
every  "  person  ".a  regular  trial  in  due  course  of 
law,  before  regularly  constituted  courts  of  jus 
tice,  the  party  being  allowed  to  be  present, 
confront  his  witnesses,  cross-examine  them, 
and  due  time  and  opportunity  of  making  his 
defence.  But  in  all  these  respects  the  act  of 
1850  violates  this  provision  of  the  Constitution. 
Now  suppose  you  seize  a  man  here  in  Colum 
bus  to-day,  upon  claim  that  he  is  a  slave.  When 
seized  he  is  at  liberty.  The  very  first  question 
is,  shall  this  man,  then  at  liberty,  be  deprived 
of  this  liberty  ?  Whether  he  is  white  or  black, 
you  start  out  with  the  presumption  in  his  favor, 
that  he  is  free  j  a  presumption  older  than  the 
Constitution,  older  than  the  common  law,  older 
even  than  Christianity  itself,  for  it  was  a  max 
im  of  the  Roman  law  before  Christ  was  born, 
and  it  is  to-day  a  maxim  engrafted  on  the  laws 
of  every  civilized  country,  all  the  world  over, 


OBERLIX-WELLINGTON  EESCUE. 


221 


except  the  slave  States  of  this  Christian  Re 
public. 

The  question  then  is,  shall  he  be  deprived  of 
his  liberty  ?  How  shall  this  question  be  deter 
mined  ?  The  Constitution  says,  "  Only  by  due 
process  of  law."  It  says  that  vou  shall  not 
deprive  him  of  that  liberty  in  which  you  found 
him  —  that  liberty  to  which  the  law  presumes 
him  entitled  —  you  shall  not  hold  him  as  a  slave 
unless  you  first  establish  that  he  is  your  slave, 
by  the  judgment  of  a  regular  judicial  tribunal, 
in  a  proceeding  regularly  instituted  and  duly 
conducted  in  open  court,  confronting  him 
with  the  witnesses  against  him,  or  yielding  him 
the  opportunity  to  cross-examine  them,  and 
giving  him  reasonable  time  and  opportunity  to 
produce  the  evidence,  if  he  have  such,  of  his 
freedom.  This  is  what  the  Constitution  says 
you  shall  do  before  you  shall  take  him  away  as 
a  slave.  But  how  does  the  act  of  1850  say  you 
may  do  this  ?  Let  its  provisions  answer.  By 
its  very  terms  the  judge  or  commissioner  is 
specially  enjoined  to  determine  the  case  in  a 
summary  manner,  and  he  is  specially  authorized 
and  required  to  receive  as  evidence,  ex  parte 
affidavits  taken  in  a  distant  State.  Or  by 
still  another  provision,  upon  the  production 
of  a  record,  made  upon  ex  parte  proof,  in  a 
distant  State,  perhaps  years  before,  which  cer 
tifies  that  the  fugitive  owes  labor  and  service 
and  has  escaped  —  containing  a  general  de 
scription  of  the  person  with  such  convenient 
certainty  as  may  be  —  upon  the  bare  produc 
tion  of  this  ex  parte  record,  coupled  with  simple 
evidence  of  "  identity,"  the  judge  or  commis 
sioner  is  required  imperatively  to  adjudge  him  a 
slave  and  deliver  him  up  to  the  claimant.  And 
now  I  desire  the  court,  by  their  judgment,  to 
say,  whether  this  is  the  "DUE  PROCESS  OF 
LAW,"  without  which  no  man's  liberty  can  be 
taken  away  —  whether  this  is  the  tenure  by 
which  we  all  hold  our  property,  liberties,  and 
lives.  But  the  safeguards  for  the  liberty  of  the 
person  do  not  stop  here. 

Another  provision  ordains  that  "  in  suits  at 
common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy 
exceeded  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  shall  be  preserved."  This  provision  has 
been  repeatedly  discussed  and  passed  on  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  so  that 
its  effect  is  no  longer  the  subject  of  question. 
To  the  operative  effect  of  this  provision  three 
conditions  must  co-exist:  1,  a  suit;  2,  at  com 
mon  law;  and  3,  the  value  of  the  matter  in  liti 
gation  must  exceed  twenty  dollars.  Now,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  the  Supreme  Court  in 
Cohens  v.  Virginia  (6  Wheat.  407),  hold  that 
the  prosecution  of  a  claim  was  a  suit,  and  that 
in  the  Prigg  case,  that  the  claim  for  the  sur 
render  of  a  fugitive  slave  constituted  in  the 
strictest  sense  a  "  case,"  that  is  a  "  suit,"  "  for 
the  exercise  of  the  judicial  power."  The  pro 
ceeding  then  under  the  act  of  1850  is  a  suit 
beyond  all  doubt  or  cavil.  But  next  this  suit 
is  a  suit  at  common  law,  and  here  again,  fortu 


nately,  not  simply  general  principles  but  the 
Supreme  Court  itself  has  illuminated  this  par 
ticular  question  so  as  to  exclude  all  possibility 
of  mistake.  To  determine  what  is  a  suit  at 
common  law,  we  have  only  to  look  at  the  pro 
ceedings  authorized  and  conducted  under  its 
own  rules  as  distinguished  from  cases  in  equity 
or  admiralty.  Now  looking  back  to  no  very 
remote  period  at  common  law,  we  find  that 
there  existed  a  system  of  slavery  known  un 
der  the  apt  name  of  villana^e,  the  slave  be 
longing  to  the  lord  of  the  soil.  This  relation, 
with  all  its  incidents  and  the  mutual  remedies 
given  to  master  and  servant,  was  duly  regu 
lated  by  the  common  law.  Slaves  then  as  now 
escaped  from  their  masters.  What  was  the 
remedy  of  the  lord  ?  Without  undertaking 
here  to  enumerate  them  or  the  precise  nature 
of  each,  I  may  say  generally  that  the  lord  could 
not  seize  and  retain  his  slave,  except  in  virtue 
of  some  common  law  proceeding  which  involved 
a  trial  by  jury  before  one  of  the  Superior 
Courts.  Your  honor  will  find  the  various  pro 
ceedings  enumerated  and  explained  in  Har- 
grave's  notes  to  the  case  of  "  Somerset,"  20 
fiowell's  State  Trials,  38. 

Thus,  as  determined  by  that  law  itself,  the 
remedy  of  the  lord  for  a  fugitive  slave,  was  a 
suit  at  common  law,  a  suit  to  be  tried  by  a 
jury ;  and  the  forms  of  the  writs,  counts,  plead 
ings,  verdicts  and  judgments,  in  these  suits  are 
still  to  be  found  among  the  precedents  of  the 
common  law.  But  this  is  not  all.  I  come 
back  again  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  fortify  myself  with  its  au 
thority.  In  Parsons  v.  Bedford  (3  Peters,  45G), 
considering  this  very  constitutional  provision, 
that  Court  says  :  — 

"By  '  common  law,'  the  framcrs  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  meant  what  the 
Constitution  denominated  in  the  Third  Article, 
'  law,'  not  merely  suits  which  the  common  law 
recognized  among  its  old  and  settled  proceed 
ings,  but  suits  in  which  legal  rights  were  to  be 
ascertained  and  determined  in  contradistinction 
to  those  where  equitable  rights  alone  were  re 
garded,  and  equitable  remedies  were  adminis 
tered  ;  or  where,  as  in  the  admiralty,  a  mixture 
of  public  law  and  of  maritime  law  and  equity 
was  often  found  in  the  same  suit. 

"  The  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  by  which  the  trial  by  jury  was 
secured,  may,  in  a  just  sense,  be  well  con 
strued  to  embrace  all  suits  which  are  not  of 
equity  or  admiralty  jurisdiction,  whatever  may 
be  the  peculiar  form  which  they  may  assume  to 
settle  legal  rights." 

Now,  since  the  proceeding  to  recover  a  fugi 
tive  slave  is  not  a  suit  in  equity  or  admiralty, 
but  is  a  suit  to  settle  the  legal  right  of  the  mas 
ter  to  his  custody  and  possession,  it  must  be  a 
suit  at  common  law,  within  the  meaning  of  this 
provision.  Here,  then,  whether  we  look  back 
to  the  common  law  itself  to  see  what  suits  it 
embraced  or  to  this  exposition  of  the  Consti- 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


tution,  the  proceeding  to  reclaim  a  fugitive  is 
a  suit  at  common  law.  This  point  is  "  settled." 

If,  now,  the  value  of  a  man's  freedom  is  worth 
more  than  twenty  dollars ;  or  if,  supposing  him 
to  be  a  slave,  he  is  worth  more  than  twenty  dol 
lars,  he  is  entitled  as  of  right  and  under  the  ex 
press  sanction  of  the  Constitution,  to  a  trial  by 
jury.  And  here  again  we  have  an  exposition 
of  the  clause  in  this  respect,  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  In  the  case  of  Lee 
v.  Lee  (8  Peters,  44),  which  was  a  petition  for 
freedom,  instituted  by  the  appellants  in  the 
Court  below,  and  there  decided  against  them, 
objection  was  made  that  the  value  in  contro 
versy  was  not  one  thousand  dollars ;  and  there 
fore  the  appellants  were  not,  under  the  statute 
of  the  United  States,  entitled  to  appeal  the  case 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  Now  what  did  the 
Court  hold  on  this  question  ?  I  read  from 
the  report :  — 

_"  By  the  Court — The  matter  in  dispute  in 
this  case  is  the  freedom  of  the  petitioners.  The 
judgment  of  the  Court  below  is  against  their 
claims  to  freedom;  the  matter  in  dispute  is, 
therefore,  to  the  plaintiffs  in  error,  the  value  of 
their  freedom,  and  this  is  not  susceptible  of  a 
pecuniary  valuation.  Had  the  judgment  been 
in  favor  of  the  petitioners,  and  the  writ  of  error 
brought  by  the  party  claiming  to  be  the  OAvner, 
the  value  of  the  slaves  as  property  would  have 
been  the  matter  in  dispute,  and  affidavits  might 
be  admitted  to  ascertain  such  value.  But  affi 
davits,  estimating  the  value  of  freedom,  are  en 
tirely  inadmissible ;  and  no  doubt  is  enter 
tained  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court." 

This  case,  then,  founding  itself  on  principles 
of  universal  justice  and  humanity,  affirms  that 
the  right  of  a  man  to  his  freedom  is  worth,  not 
merely  one  thousand  dollars,  but  is  above  all 
pecuniary  valuation. 

Summing  up  these  results,  what  are  they  ? 
Mark  :  I  appeal  now  to  no  "  new-fangled  radi 
cal  "  doctrine ;  to  no  wild  utterance  of  some 
fanatic,  "crazy"  on  the  subject  of  freedom ; 
but  to  res  adjudicata ;  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  ^  the  United  States,  whose  decisions  are 
claimed  by  the  other  side  to  "conclude"  ev 
ery  question  within  their  scope.  That  Court 
first  declares  that  the  "claim"  for  a  fugitive 
slave  is  a  "suit."  The  same  Court  next  de 
clare  that  it  is  a  "  suit  at  common  law."  The 
same  Court  ^next  declare  that  "  the  value  in 
controversy  in  any  such  suit  exceeds  twenty 
dollars ; "  exceeds  all  valuation.  All  these  re 
sults  are  "  concluded "  by  tke  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  if  that  Court  can  con 
clude  any  thing.  The  Constitution,  then,  as 
construed  by  the  tribunal  —  here  asserted  to 
be  its  final  expositor — ordains  that  upon 
every  claim  for  the  reclamation  of  a  fugitive 
slave,  he  shall  have  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 
How  do  the  learned  counsel  for  the  Federal 
Government  like  this  res  adjudicata  ?  and  how, 
upon  their  own  reasoning,  do  they  escape  its 
force  ?  If  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 


have  the  effect  here  attributed  to  them,  then 
the  learned  counsel  for  the  Government  can 
not  deny — this  Court  cannot  deny  —  that 
the  Fugitive  act  of  1850  is  void. 

The  act  of  1850  is  also  void  on  the  further 
ground  that  it  protects  or  assumes  to  protect 
the  asserted  right  of  private  recaption  —  for  an 
alleged  obstruction  of  which  Bushnell  is  now 
restrained  of  his  liberty.  The  absolute  non- 
existence  of  this  pretended  right  has,  I  think, 
been  already  demonstrated,  and  might,  perhaps, 
be  left  there.  But  I  am  yet  to  show  that  the 
exercise  of  any  such  power  is  not  simply  not 


ready  established,  the  master  may  not,  by  vir 
tue  of  the  adjudication  of  a  commissioner  which 
preserves  some  semblance  of  trial,  seize  and 
carry  off  this  alleged  fugitive  slave,  because 
that  adjudication  is  the  exercise  of  a  judicial 
power,  which  cannot  be  vested  in  a  commis 
sioner  ;  still  less  may  a  private  person  assume 
the  exercise  of  that  power  and  determine  for 
himself  his  own  rights.  If  the  master  cannot 
retake  under  the  summary  adjudication  of  a 
judge,  because  though  it  has  the  form  of  legal 
proceedings,  it  is  not  due  process  of  law ;  and 
because  it  deprives  the  alleged  fugitive  of  a 
jury  trial ;  still  less  may  he  do  it  constituting 
himself  judge,  jury,  and  ministerial  officer, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  process,  with 
out  the  color  of  any  adjudication.  Still  more, 
even,  than  such  an  adjudication,  is  this  infa 
mous  doctrine  of  recaption  incompatible  with  the 
two  constitutional  provisions  which  secure  the 
trial  by  jury  and  protect  liberty  against  every 
thing  but  due  process  of  law. 

This  doctrine  is  also  pointedly  prohibited  by 
that  other  amendment  which  declares  that  "  the 
right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  per 
sons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  un 
reasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be 
violated." 

Now  I  beg  to  know  whether  the  seizure  of  a 
person,  white  or  black,  on  the  mere  claim  that 
he  belongs  to  you,  unsupported  by  oath,  affirma 
tion  or  evidence,  without  the  color  of  process 
or  pretence  of  trial,  and  the  transportation  of 
him  to  another  State,  where  he  is  presumed  to 
be  a  slave  if  he  have  a  taint  of  negro  blood  in  his 
veins,  though  no  trace  of  it  in  his  skin,  I  beg  to 
know  whether  this  is  not  just  such  a  seizure  as 
this  clause  meant  to  prohibit;  and  if  it  does  not 
forbid  this,  what,  in  the  name  of  freedom,  does 
it  forbid  ?  In  answer  to  these  objections,  it  is 
sometimes  said  that  neither  the  power  of  recap 
tion,  or  the  adjudication  of  a  commissioner,  de 
prives  him  of  his  liberty  without  due  process, 
or  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  but  that  when 
he  has  been  taken  into  a  slave  State  all  these 
rights  shall  be  accorded  to  him.  I  reply,  First, 
that  the  very  act  of  caption  deprives  him  of  his 
liberty.  Second,  that  the  adjudication  of  the 
commissioners  not  only  in  terms,  pronounces 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  BESCUE. 


223 


him  to  be  a  slave,  and  delivers  him  as  such  to 
the  absolute  control  of  the  claimant,  but  that 
adjudication,  though  rendered  on  an  ex  parte 
record,  or  ex  parte  evidence,  is,  by  the  act  of 
1850  itself,  declared  to  be  everywhere  conclu 
sive,  in  the  slave  as  well  as  free  States.  J  re- 
pi  v,  thirdly,  that  the  moment  the  master  gets 
his  fugitive,  even  without  process,  into  a  slave 
State,  the  maxim  which  presumed  him  free,  is 
changed,  and  he  is  from  thence  intended  in  law 
to  be  a  slave ;  and  possession  of  him  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  slavery ;  and,  lastly,  of  those 
who  babble  about  his  instituting  there  a  suit  for 
his  freedom,  I  desire  to  know  how  a  freeman, 
sent  as  a  slave  to  the  rice  swamps  of  South 
Carolina,  in  the  custody  of  one  who,  in  virtue 
of  that  very  possession,  is  his  presumed  master, 
and  who,  as  such,  holds  by  law  the  power  of  life 
and  death  over  him,  —  I  desire  to  know  how, 
under  this  absolute  duress  and  with  all  these 
artificial  and  cruel  presumptions  against  him, 
this  free  man  is  to  assert  his  title  to  freedom  ? 
and  if  this  is  not  depriving  a  man  of  his  liberty, 
what  act  of  forcible  seizure  can  be  defined  as 
such  ?  This  paltry  subterfuge  is  an  insult  not 
less  offensive  to  common  sense  than  to  common 
humanity. 

Finally,  then,  if  the  Court  please,  I  arraign 
this  ACT  of  1850  as  a  FLAGRANT  USUR 
PATION  BY  CONGRESS  OF  WHOLLY 
UNDELEGATED  POWERS. 

1.  Upon  the  argument  drawn  from  the  his 
tory  of  the  Constitution,  the  truth  of  which 
history  no  man  can  gainsay,  and  the  strength 
of  which  argument  no  man  can  resist 

2.  Upon  the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  itself,  which,  times  without 
number,  and  everywhere,  save  in  tho  Prigg 
case,  in  the  Booth  case,  and  in  the  Van  Zandt 
case,  has  declared  the  great  principle  that  Con 
gress  has  no  powers  save  those  expressly  grant 
ed,  and  such  as  are  purely  subsidiary  to  the  ex 
pressly  granted  powers,  so  that  obedience  to 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Prigg  case,  is  diso 
bedience  to  its  judgments  in  a  thousand  other 
cases. 

3.  Upon  the  TEXT  of  the  Constitution  itself, 
which  not  only  confers  no  power  on  Congress 
over  the  subject;  but  leaves  all  power  with  the 
States,  in  language  too  plain  to  be  mistaken, 
too  clear  to  admit  of  misinterpretation. 

But  if,  notwithstanding  these  seemingly  irre 
sistible  grounds  for  that  impeachment,  the 
Court  shall  nevertheless  be  of  opinion  that 
Congress  lias  some  power  to  legislate  upon  that 
subject  —  then  I  arraign  this  act  as  transcend 
ing  those  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution  which 
circumscribe  and  limit  all  Federal  power, 
•whether  executive,  legislative,  or  judicial, 
vrithin  impassable  bounds. 

1.  It  vests   a  vital  portion   of  the  judicial 
power  of  the  United  States  in  tribunals  not 
known  to,  and  inhibited  by,  the  Constitution. 

2.  In  a  suit  at  common  law,  where  the  value 
in  controversy  exceeds  twenty  dollars,  where 


it  is  beyond  all  price,  it  takes  away  the  trial  by 
jury. 

3.  It  deprives  all  persons  subject  to  its  opera 
tion  —  and  every  person,  white  or  black,  is  so 
subject  —  of  their  liberties,  without  due  pro 
cess  of  law. 

4.  It  openly  contravenes  that  right  of  the 
people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons  against 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures. 

Against  this  arraignment  what  do  you  find 
interposed?  Denial  of  its  truth  ?  No  >Vhat 
is  the  answer  ?  Still  and  only  still  res  adjudi- 
cata.  But  what  is  meant  by  this  resadjudi- 
cata  ?  Has  any  Court,  Federal,  or  otherwise, 
ever  passed  upon  the  application  now  before 
your  Honors?  No  such  thing  is  pretended. 
Assuming  the  Fugitive  act  to  be  unconstitu 
tional —  and  this  plea  virtually  admits  that  — 
has  any  competent  tribunal  ever  passed  upon 
the  rights  of  Langston  and  Bushnell  in  this 
behalf?  No,  for  the  proceedings  in  the  Dis 
trict  Court  are  a  nullity.  Will  it  be  claimed 
that  the  judgment  in  the  Prigg  case,  or  the 
Booth  case,  operated  by  its  own  force  to  bind 
these  applicants,  that  it  estops  them  ?  Surely 
not.  How  then  can  the  Prigg  case  or  any 
other  be  set  up  here  against  them  ?  Why,  say 
the  counsel,  that  case  "settled"  or  "declared" 
as  the  law  of  the  land,  a  certain  rule  which 
applies  to  these  cases,  and  by  which  the  rights 
of  the  relators  must  be  determined.  With 
deference  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  Courts  don't 
and  can't  settle  or  *  declare '  the  law  of  the 
land.  In  a  constitutional  government  that 
function  belongs  to  the  law-making  power,  the 
legislature,  alone.  If  Courts  can  usurp  that 
function,  it  would  be  wise  economy  to  abolish 
the  Legislature  and  get  that  useless  machine 
out  of  the  way.  What  then  do  Courts  settle  ? 
The  rights  of  the  parties  litigant  in  each  case, 
nothing  more,  nothing  less,  nothing  else.  In  dis 
charging  this  vitally  important  duty  Courts  en 
deavor  to  ascertain  the  principle  of  law  which 
applies  to  the  particular  state  of  fact  then  before 
them,  and  ascertaining  that  or  supposing  them 
selves  to  have  ascertained  it,  they  decide  the 
rights  of  the  parties  to  that  particular  suit,  ac 
cordingly.  Obviously  the  only  thing  which  has 
been  adjudicated,  is  that  one  or  the  other  of 
these  parties  shall  have  such  judgment  in  his 
favor  as  the  Court  deems  it  proper  to  render, 
and  that  judgment  becomes  a  law  to  those  par 
ties  and  the  law  of  that  case.  Now  a  single 
decision  or  a  series  of  decisions  settling  tho 
rights  of  parties  litigant,  according  to  some 
supposed  general  rule,  are  evidence  more  or 
less  strong,  depending  entirely  on  the  strength 
of  the  reasoning,  and  the  justice  of  the  conclu 
sion,  that  the  rule  acted  upon  in  those  cases  is 
the  right  rule,  and  ought  to  be  applied  to  all 
cases  similarly  circumstanced.  But  still  such 
adjudications  are  only  evidence,  and  the 
weight  of  their  testimony,  in  favor  of  any  sup 
posed  rule,  must  be  determined  for  itself  by 
every  Court  when  called  on  to  apply  that  rule 


224 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


to  the  resolution  of  any  case  pending  before  it. 
Every  day's  practice  in  every  Court  illustrates 
this.  Judges  sometimes  err  as  to  the  correct 
ness  of  a  rule  by  which  they  decide  a  particu 
lar  case,  sometimes  the  error  becomes  invete 
rate,  but  finally  it  is  found  to  be  erroneous. 
Do  even  the  same  Courts,  therefore,  persist  in 
deciding  all  future  cases,  by  this  wrong  rule  ? 
Not  at  all.  If  the  error  involve  any  important 
question,  touching  property,  liberty,  or  life,  the 
Court  applies  the  right  rule,  or  what  it  con 
ceives  to  be  such,  to  the  very  next  similar  case 
that  depends  before  it.  Every  Court,  this 
Court,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  habitually  disregards  any  rule  affecting 
important  interests  by  which  they  have  de 
cided  previous  cases,  whenever  satisfied  that 
the  rule  is  not  the  right  one.  On  no  other 
condition  is  improvement  in  the  law  possible. 
But  how  could  Courts  disregard  any  such  pre 
viously  accepted  rule,  if  it  became  the  law  of 
the  land  ?  For  it  is  a  mere  truism  to  say  that 
Courts  are  as  much  bound  by  the  law  of  the 
land  ;  have  no  more  power  to  change  or  disre 
gard  it  than  the  humblest  citizen. 

Your  Honors,  then,  are  not  bound  to  follow 
the  rule  on  which  the  Prigg,  or  the  Booth,  or 
any  other  case  was  decided,  if,  on  careful  ex 
amination  and  reflection,  that  rule  is,  in  your 
judgment,  wrong.  Especially  are  you  bound 
by  your  solemn  oaths  to  disregard  it  if  exercis 
ing  your  best  judgment  —  and  it  is  your  judg 
ment  alone  that  must  be  exercised  —  you  con 
scientiously  believe  it  to  be  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution.  To  that  you  owe  your  first  and 
last  and  chief  allegiance ;  and  if  any  case  con 
flicts  with  it,  you  must  throw  that  case  to  the 
winds.  Why,  to  what  end  were  the  limitations 
and  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution  to  which  I 
have  adverted,  and  upon  which  I  claim  the  dis 
charge  of  these  applicants  —  to  what  end,  I  say, 
were  they  made  ?  For  the  very  purpose  of  se 
curing  the  natural  birthright  of  man  to  his 
freedom,  a  right  in  itself  a  very  sacred  thing, 
by  the  most  explicit  and  absolute  recognition  of 
its  inviolability,  so  that  —  I  quote  from  Burke 
—  to  the  inherent  sacredness  of  the  right  itself, 
is  added  the  sanctity  of  that  solemn  public  faith 
so  formally  pledged  for  its  security.  Against 
whom  were  these  limitations  and  prohibitions 
directed?  Undeniably  against  every  depart 
ment  of  the  Federal  Government,  since  they 
are  operative  only  against  that  Government. 

They  were  meant  to  secure  this  great  natural, 
sacred  right,  not  only  against  usurpations  by 
the  Executive  and  Legislative  Departments,  but 
especially  as  their  subject-matter  indicates,  to 
protect  them  against  the  chicane  of  the  judicial 
power  of  that  Government.  But  can  your  Hon 
ors  be  made  to  believe  that  these  very  inhibi 
tions,  designed  expressly  to  hedge  in  this  judicial 
power,  may  be  overpassed  by  it  at  its  own  pleas 
ure  ;  and  that  if  in  one  or  more  cases,  it  has 
asserted  its  right  to  transcend  these  limits,  this 
Court,  and  all  other  courts  are  forthwith  bound, 


by  the  very  Constitution  which  has  been  thus 
violated,  to  acknowledge  the  existence  of  this 
asserted  right  ?  On  the  contrary,  these  formal 
recognitions  and  guarantees  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  of  an  original  action  of  man,  cannot  be 
subverted,  by  even  the  judicial  power,  without 
uprooting  "  the  holding,  radical  principles  "  of 
the  Government,  nay,  even  of  the  SOCIAL 
COMPACT  ITSELF. 

But  then,  I  am  asked,  where  is  this  to  end  ? 
If  the  State  courts  refuse  to  recognize  the  gen 
eral  principles  of  constitutional  interpretation 
declared  by  the  highest  Federal  Court,  which  of 
the  diverse  interpretations,  which,  it  is  said, 
must  then  ensue,  shall  prevail  ?  The  question, 
though  not  pertinent,  admits  of  several  answers, 
but  one  shall  suffice.  Every  court  must,  from 
the  necessity  of  things,  determine  every  case 
before  it,  upon  its  own  view  of  law.  If  the 
given  case  be  not  within  the  appellate  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
the  decision  of  the  State  Court  is  final,  and 
there  the  matter  ends.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the 
case  be  within  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  that 
Court,  it  will  decide  that  case  on  its  own  notions 
of  the  law,  and  as  that  decision  will  be  final  as 
to  the  case,  there  the  case  will  end.  This  is 
the  rule  of  the  Constitution,  and  while  it  leads 
to  no  conflict  of  jurisdiction,  it  yet  devolves  on 
each  system  of  courts  its  own  proper  rights 
and  duties,  and  holds  it  to  its  own  due  responsi 
bility. 

Before  leaving  this  topic,  I  desire  to  ask  of 
those  who  insist  so  strongly  on  res  adjudicata, 
which  of  two  differing  res  adjudicata  shall  the 
Court  obey  ?  Shall  it  follow  Martin's  Lessee 
against  Hunter,  Cohens  against  Virginia,  and 
that  long  bead-roll  of  cases  in  which  the  Su 
preme  Court  has  declared  that  Congress  has 
none  but  expressly  delegated  powers,  —  or  the 
Prigg,  and  Booth,  and  Van  Zandt  cases,  three 
by  tale,  in  which  it  has  declared  an  exactly  op 
posite  conclusion?  And  again,  by  the  four 
cases  which  I  cited  when  considering  that  sub 
ject,  the  Supreme  Court  declare  in  effect^  that 
no  fugitive  slave  shall  be  delivered  up  until  the 
master  has  established  his  right  by  the  verdict 
of  a  jury.  On  the  contrary,  by  the  Booth  case, 
that  same  court  declares  that  he  may  be  deliv 
ered  up  without  such  verdict.  You  cannot  fol 
low  all  of  these  cases.  Pulled  in  opposite  ways 
by  these  contending  forces,  to  which  shall  your 
Honors  yield  ?  GO  BACK,  I  SAY,  TO 
THE  TEXT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION, 
PLANT  YOURSELVES  ON  ITS  PRIMAL 
GRANITE,  AND  FOLLOW  THE  RULE 
WHICH  YOU  SHALL  FIND  SO  PLAIN 
LY  AND  INDELIBLY  GRAVEN  THERE. 
That  rule  needs  no  authority  other  than  its  own, 
for  it  is  supreme.  But  if  you  still  desire  the 
authority  of  adjudged  cases,  I  have  shown  them 
to  you.  I  ask  the  Court  to  tread  no  new  path. 
Let  it  stand  super  antiquas  vias.  Let  it  follow 
the  ancient  maxim  upon  which  I  have  insisted, 
coming  as  it  does  from  Pagandom  down  to 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


225 


Christendom,  surviving,  by  its  inherent  vitality 
of  justice,  the  overthrow  of  empires  and  the 
wreck  of  civilization,  —  let  it  follow  the  track 
blazed  out  for  it  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  itself  in  the  earlier —  and  it  may 
not  unfitly  be  added  —  the  better  days  of  the 
Republic. 

There  still  remains  a  single  topic  of  which  it 
is  difficult  to  determine  how  much  or  how  little 
ought  to  be  said.  No  man  has  dared  to  breathe 
it  in  this  presence,  and  yet  the  Federal  func 
tionaries  have  filled  the  air  with  it,  so  that  I 
hear  and  you  hear  it  openly  said,  that  if  this 
court  —  following  these  ancient  landmarks,  fol 
lowing  the  track  of  the  Supreme  Court  before 
it  became  a  sectional  court  —  shall,  in  the  exer 
cise  of  its  highest  and  most  imperative  function, 
enlarge  these  relators,  there  will  be  a  collision 
between  the  State  and  the  Federal  Govern 
ment.  WHAT  THEN  '?  Are  we  children ;  are 
we  old  women,  that  we  shall  be  frightened  from 
duty  by  this  menace  ?  Are  the  court,  coerced 
by  these  threats,  to  pronounce  a  decision  which 
shall  stultify  their  judgments  and  blast  their 
'  consciences  ?  Has  it  come  to  this,  that  the 
Federal  authorities,  instead  of  invoking  the  ap 
pellate  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  review 
your  proceeding,  are  to  trample  your  judgments 
under  foot  in  your  very  presence  ?  And  are 
you,  therefore,  to  remand  these  applicants  to  an 
unlawful  imprisonment  ?  If  these  be  the  only 
alternatives — if  collision  can  be  avoided  only 
by  striking  down  every  safeguard  with  which 
the  Constitution  has  hedged  about  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen,  LET  COLLISION  COME- 
COME  NOW.  Let  the  question  be  settled  while 
I  live.  I  don't  want  to  leave  the  alternative  of 
collision  or  of  the  absolute  despotism  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government  as  a  legacy  to  my  children.  But, 
do  not  misunderstand  me.  It  is  not  in  a  judi 
cial  tribunal  that  one  should  hold  the  law  as 
naught,  or  undervalue  the  inestimable  blessings 
of  order  and  peace.  LAW  I  reverence;  but 
not  the  "  law  of  King  Bomba."  ORDER,  I  stand 
by  that,  but  not  the  "  order  "  which  "  reigned 
in  Warsaw."  PEACE  —  that  I  would  preserve 
at  almost  any  cost  —  but  not  that  peace  which 
is  only  the  quiet  of  the  grave. 

But  there  will  be  no  collision.  These  threats 
and  fears  are  alike  idle.  If  this  court  shall  by 
its  judgment  discharge  the  relators,  the  Federal 
Government  will  acquiesce  in  that  judgment 
until  it  shall  have  been  reviewed  in  the  mode 
contemplated  by  the  Constitution.  Whenever 
another  like  case  shall  again  arise,  the  State 
Court  will  a^ain  discharge,  and  this  process 
must  be  continued  until  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  listening  to  reason,  shall  voluntarily  return 
again  to  the  sphere  of  its  legitimate  functions 
and  duties ;  or  until  the  PEOPLE,  roused  to 
action,  and  exercising  the  constitutional  remedy, 
shall  constrain  its  return  by  a  will  only  less 
sovereign ;  and  with  reverence  be  it  said  — 
only  less  divine  than  the  WILL  OF  GOD. 

And  here,  I  leave  with  your  Honors,  this  case 

29 


and  all  the  great  interests  which  it  involves. 
Weightier  consequences  never  hung  on  the  ar 
bitrament  of  any  tribunal.  The  strain  of  the 
Federative  System  has  come,  and  your  Honors 
are  to  determine,  at  least  for  the  citizens  of 
Ohio,  whether  under  that  system  there  can  be 
any  adequate  protection,  for  the  reserved  Rights 
of  the  States,  or  any  efficient  safeguards  for  the 
Liberty  of  the  citizens.  THE  CAUSE  OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL  GOVERNMENT  IS 
HERE,  AND  NOW,  ON  TRIAL.  GOD 
SEND  IT  A  SAFE  DELIVERANCE. 

SECOND  DAY.  —  MORNING  SESSION. 
The  masterly  argument  of  the  Attorney- 
General  occupied  the  entire  afternoon  of  yes 
terday,  and  the  morning  of  to-day.  The  Court 
adjourned  till  afternoon  to  hear  argument  in 
another  and  somewhat  similar  case. 

SECOND  DAY.  —  AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

After  hearing  argument  in  the  case  of  the 
relator  from  Cincinnati,  the  Court  took  recess 
until  Saturday  morning,  to  make  up  its  opinion. 

THIRD  DAY.  —  SATURDAY. 
The  Chief  Justice,  opening  the  Court,  an 
nounced  that  as  the  case  was  one  of  much  im 
portance,  and  the  authorities  cited  by  counsel 
were  numerous,  the  recess  had  been  consumed 
in  industrious  labor,  without  finishing  the  work 
as  thoroughly  as  it  seemed  to  the  Court  desira 
ble,  and,  doubtless,  would  also  to  all  parties 
interested.  The  Court  would,  therefore,  take 
further  adjournment  until  Monday  afternoon, 
at  3  o'clock,  when  it  was  hoped  the  decision 
would  be  rendered. 

FOURTH  DAY.  —  MONDAY,  MAY  30. 

At  3:24  the  Judges  took  their  seats.     The 

opinion   of  the  majority  was  read  by    Chief 

Justice  SWAN,  only  a  syllabus  of  which   his 

Honor  was  willing  to  furnish  for  publication  : — 

JUDGE  SWAN'S  OPINION. 

Judges  SWAN,  SCOTT,  and  PECK  held :  — 

I.  That  the  provisions  of  Article  4,  Section 
2,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State  under  the  la'ws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  la 
bor  may  be  due,"  guarantees  to  the  owner  of 
an  escaped  slave  the  right  of  reclamation. 

IE.  That  a  citizen,  who,  knowingly  and  in 
tentionally,  interferes  with,  for  the  purpose  of 
rescue,  or  rescues  from  the  owner  an  escaped 
slave,  is  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  whether  the  Acts  of  1795 
and  1850,  commonly  called  the  fugitive  slave 
laws,  are  constitutional  or  not. 

III.  That  the  question  in  this  case,  is  not 


226 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


whether  the  Fugitive  Act  of  1850  is  unconsti 
tutional  in  respect  to  the  appointment  and  pow 
ers  of  Commissioners,  the  allowance  of  a  writ 
of  habeas  corpus,  the  mode  of  reclamation,  etc., 
but  whether  Congress  has  any  power  to  pass 
any  law  whatever,  however  just  and  proper  in 
its  provisions,  for  the  reclamation  of  slaves,  or 
to  protect  the  owner  of  an  escaped  slave  from 
interference,  when  duly  asserting  his  constitu 
tional  rights  of  reclamation. 

IV  That  Congress,  from  the  earliest  perioc 
of  the  government  has,  by  legislative  penalties 
vindicated  the  constitutional  right  of  the  owner 
of  slaves  against  unlawful  interference. 

V.  That  such  legislation  was  adopted  in  1793 
by  the  second  Congress  elected  under  the  Con 
stitution,  composed  of  many  of  the  members  o 
the  Convention  who  framed  the  Constitution 
has,  from  that  day  to  this,  been  in  active  ope 
ration,  and  has  been  acquiesced  in  by  all  de 
partments  of  the    Government,  National  and 
State ;  and  the  legislative  power  of  Congress 
on   this   subject  has   been   recognized  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio  in  their 
statutes ;  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  by  the  Supreme  Courts  of  Massa 
chusetts,  New   York,   Pennsylvania,   Indiana, 
Illinois,  California,  by  the  Supreme  Court  ol 
Ohio  on  the  circuit,  and,  indeed,  by  the   Su 
preme   Courts  of  every  State  in   the   Union, 
where  the   question   has  been  made,  and  has 
never  been  denied  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
any  State  —  the  Courts  of  Wisconsin,  notwith 
standing  the  popular  impression,  not  forming  an 
exception. 

VI.  The  right  to  rescue  escaped  slaves  from 
their  owners  being  denied  to  all  citizens  of  the 
United  States  by  the  Constitution ;  Congress 
having  prohibited  it  and  enforced  the  prohibi 
tion  by  penalties ;  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  and  Courts  of  the  free   States 
having  recognized  and  acquiesced  in  such  leg 
islative    prohibition    and    punishment,   if  the 
question  is  not  thus  put  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  private  personal  views  of  Judges,  and  if 
they  possess  judicial  discretion  or  power  to 
overrule  oa  the  authority  of  their  individual 
opinions,  this  unbroken  current  of  decisions 
and  this  acquiescence  of  the   States  of  the 
Union,  and  change  the  settled  interpretation  of 
the    Constitution   of  the  United    States;  then 
there  is  no  limit,  and  no  restraint  upon  Judges 
at  any  time  and  under  any  circumstances,  their 
own   individual   opinions,  the   arbitrary  inter 
preters  of  the  Constitution. 

VII.  Whatever  differences  of  opinion  may 
now  exist  in  the  public  mind,  as  to  the  power 
of  Congress  to  punish  rescuers  as  provided  in 
the  acts  of  1793  and  1850,  no  such  vital  blow  is 
given  either  to  constitutional  rights  or  State 
sovereignty  by  Congress,  thus  enacting  a  law 
to  punish  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  to  demand  of  this  Court  the 
organization  of  resistance.    If,  after  more  than 
sixty  years  of  acquiescence  by  all  departments 


of  the  national  and  State  governments,  in  the 
power  of  Congress  to  provide  for  the  punish 
ment  of  rescuers  of  escaped  slaves,  that  power 
is  to  be  disregarded,  and  all  laws  which  may  bo 
passed  by  Congress  on  this  subject  from  hence 
forth,  are  to  be  persistently  resisted  and  nulli 
fied,  the  work  of  revolution  should  not  be 
begun  by  the  conservators  of  the  public  peace. 

Judge  SCOTT  orally  assented  to  the  fore 
going,  saying  that  he  agreed  with  its  logic  in 
the  main,  and  with  its  conclusions  altogether. 

O 

He  might  or  might  not  write  out  his  opinion 
hereafter. 

Judge  PECK  delivered  an  elaborate  written 
opinion,  coinciding  with  Judges  Swan  and 
Scott,  comprising  a  review  of  the  decisions  of 
the  courts,  and  particularly  of  the  State  courts, 
upon  the  questions  involved  in  the  case,  and 
treating  the  whole  matter  as  a  res  adjudicata, 
We  were  not  able  to  procure  either  the  opinion 
or  a  synopsis  of  it.  It  was  mainly  an  elabora*- 
tion  of  the  brief  of  Mr.  S  WAYNE. 

JUDGE   BKINKERHOFF'S   OPINION. 

BRINKERHOFF,  J.,  said:  — 

Since  the  close  of  the  argument  of  these 
cases  —  Sunday  and  a  visit  to  my  family  inter 
vening  —  I  have  not  had  time  to  do  more  than 
hastily  to  sketch  a  brief  outline  of  my  opinion 
on  the  questions  they  present.  This  I  give ; 
and  I  may  and  may  not,  as  leisure  or  inclina 
tion  may  prompt,  commit  them  to  paper,  with 
the  reasons  on  which  they  rest  more  fully  and 
in  detail  hereafter. 

I.  Under  the  advice  of  the  District- Attorney 
of  the  United  States,  the  indictments  under 
which  the  relators  were  convicted,  are  appended 
to,  and  form  a  part  of  the  return  to  these  writs. 
The  question  whether  they  charge  a  crime  or  ' 
not,  is  therefore  before  us.  Both  indictments 
are  fatally  defective  in  this,  to  witr  that  neither 
of  them  aver,  that  John  was  held  to  service  or 
labor  in  the  State  of  Kentucky  "  under  the  laws 
thereof"  2d  section,  4th  article,  Constitution 
United  States. 

1.  This  defect  is  not  a  mere  error  or  irregu 
larity.  If  it  were,  so  far  as  this  point  is  con 
cerned,  we  should  be  obliged  to  remand  the 
prisoners ;  for  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  cannot; 
be  made  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  writ  of 
error.  But,  2d.  This  defect  is  an  illegality. 
The  averment  omitted  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
crime ;  without  the  fact  omitted  to  be  averred, 
;here  is  no  crime ;  for  it  is  no  crime  to  rescue 
rom  custody  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor 
n  another  State  otherwise  than  "  under  the  laws 
hereof."  If  there  was  no  crime  charged  io. 
the  indictmeitt,  the  judgment  of  the  ^District 
Court  of  the  United  States  under  which  the 
relators  are  Beld  fc  coram  nonjudice  aa<l  void; 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  BESCUE. 


227 


they  arc  illegally  restrained  of  their  liberty, 
and  they  ought  to  be  discharged. 

II.  1.  The  indictment  against  Bushnell  con 
tains  but  one  count,  which  charges  the  rescue 
of  John  from  the  custody  of  an  agent  of  the 
claimant  of  his  labor  and  service  in  Kentucky 
—  John  having  been  arrested  and  held  in  cus 
tody  without  warrant  or  any  color  of  legal  pro 
cess. 

It  appears,  then,  on  the  face  of  the  record 
which  is  made  a  part  of  the  return  to  this  writ, 
that  here  was  a  person  domiciled  or  sojourning 
in  Ohio,  a  free  State,  and  therefore  presumed 
in  law  to  be  a  free  man,  "  unreasonably  seized" 
and  "  deprived  of  his  liberty,"  not  only  "  with 
out  due  process  of  law,"  but  without  the  pre 
tence  or  color  of  any  process  whatever.  This 
arrest  and  custody  was  in  direct  contravention 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth  articles  of  the  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  rescue  of  a  person  thus  "  unreasonably 
seized  "  and  "  deprived  of  his  liberty  without 
due  process  of  law,"  cannot  be  a  crime ;  and 
any  statute  or  judicial  procedure  which  at 
tempts  to  make  or  treat  it  as  a  crime,  is  uncon 
stitutional  and  void. 

2.  The  indictment  against  Langston  has  two 
counts ;  the  first  of  which  is  entirely  similar  to 
that  against  Bushnell ;  and  the  second  of  which 
alleges  a  similar  rescue  of  John  while  arrested 
and  held  in  custody  under  a  warrant  issued  by 
a  Commissioner  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States,  authorized  by  act  of  Congress 
to  issue  such  warrant,  and,  under  the  authority 
thereof,  to  arrest,  hold,  and  remove  the  person 
described  therein  to  a  foreign  jurisdiction  as  a 
slave. 

The  acts  of  Congress  referred  to  clearly  at 
tempt  to  confer  on  these  commissioners  the 
powers  and  functions  of  a  court ;  to  hear  and 
determine  questions  of  law  and  of  fact ;  and  to 
clothe  their  findings  and  determinations  with 
that  conclusive  authority  which  belongs  only  to 
judicial  action.  And  the  issue  of  the  warrant 
mentioned  in  the  indictment  was  a  judicial  act. 

These  provisions  of  the  acts  of  Congress  re 
ferred  to,  and  all  warrants  issued  under  them, 
are  unconstitutional  and  void,  for  the  following 
reasons :  — 

These  commissioners  are  appointed  by  the 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States  only ;  hold 
their  office  at  the  will  of  such  courts ;  and  are 
paid  by  fees.  Whereas,  by  the  express  provis 
ions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
(Art.  2,  Sec.  2,  and  Art.  3,  Sec.  1),  the  judicial 
functionaries  of  the  United  States  must  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  ad 
vice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  hold  their  offices 
during  good  behavior,  and  receive  a  fixed  com 
pensation  which  may  not  be  diminished  or  in 
creased  during  their  continuance  in  office. 

The  warrant  of  such  a  commissioner,  there 
fore,  is  a  nullity;  it  could  afford  no  authority  to 
hold  John  in  custody ;  and  to  rescue  him  from 
such  illegal  custody  could  not,  by  tho  law  of  the 


land,  be  a  crime  ;  and  therefore  the  imprison 
ment  of  Langston  by  way  of  punishment  of 
such  pretended  crime,  is  an  illegal  restraint  of 
his  liberty,  and  he,  too,  ought  therefore  to  be 
discharged. 

III.  These  relators  ought  to  be  discharged, 
because  they  have  been  indicted  and  convicted 
under  an  act  of  Congress  upon  a  subject-matter 
in  reference  to  which  Congress  has,  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  no  legislative 
power  whatever. 

As  to  the  correctness  of  this  proposition,  there 
does  not  rest  on  my  mind  the  shadow  or  glim 
mer  of  a  doubt. 

The  federal  government  is  one  of  limited 
powers ;  and  all  powers  not  expressly  granted 
to  it,  or  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  such  as 
are  expressly  granted  to  it  by  the  terms  of  the 
Constitution,  are  reserved  to  the  States  or  the 
people.  Amendments,  Art.  10. 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  ser 
vice  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on. 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due."  Art.  4,  Sec.  2. 

This  is  the  only  clause  of  the  Constitution 
from  which  anybody  pretends  to  divine,  or  in 
which  anybody  pretends  to  find  a  grant  of 
power  to  Congress  to  legislate  on  the  subject  of 
the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  labor.  I  can 
find  in  it  no  such  grant.  The  first  part  of  it 
simply  prohibits  State  legislation  hostile  to  the 
rendition  of  fugitives  from  labor.  Such  fugi 
tive  shall  not  Be  discharged  "  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation "  of  the  State  into 
which  he  shall  escape.  "  But  shall  be  delivered 
up."  By  whom  ?  By  Congress  ?  By  the 
Federal  authorities?  There  are  no  such  words ; 
and  no  such  idea  is  hinted  at.  This  is  evident 
from  an  inspection  of  the  whole  of  the  preced 
ing  portion  of  this  article. 

Art.  4,  Sec.  1 :  "  Full  faith  and  credit  shall 
be  given  in  each  State  to  the  public  acts,  re 
cords,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every  other 
State.  And  the  Congress  may  by  general  laics 
prescribe  the  manner  in  ichich  such  acts,  records, 
and  proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect 
thereof"  Here,  in  the  first  place,  is  a  compact 
between  the  States  respectively — an  agree 
ment  of  the  several  States  to  and  with  "each 
other,  that  the  "public  acts,  records,  and  judi 
cial  proceedings  "  of  each  shall  have  "  full  faith 
and  credit "  given  to  them  in  all.  Had  this  sec 
tion  closed  Yiere,  would  any  one  claim  that  it 
embraced  any  grant  of  legislative  power  to  Con 
gress?  I  think  not.  But  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  thought  that  Congress  ought  to 
have  the  power  "  to  prescribe  the  manner  in 
which  such  acts,  records,  and  proceedings,  should 
be  proved,  and  the  effect  thereof;"  and  hence 
they  gave  the  power  in  express  terms.  When 
they  intended  a  grant  of  power  to  Congress, 
and  not  a  mere  contract  stipulation  bv,  or  in- 


228 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


junction  of  duty  upon  the  States,  they  say  so, 
and  leave  us  no  room  for  cavil  on  the  subject. 
But  let  us  go  on  — 

Sec.  2.  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be 
entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citi 
zens  in  the  several  States." 

"  A  person  charged  in  any  State  with  trea 
son,  felony,  or  other  crime,  who  shall  flee  from 
justice,  and  be  found  in  another  State,  shall, 
on  demand  of  the  executive  authority  of  the 
State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up,  to 
be  removed  to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of 
the  crime." 

That  these  clauses  of  section  two  are  mere 
articles  of  compact  bet  ween  the  States,  depend 
ent  on  the  good  faith  of  the  States  alone  for 
their  fulfilment,  I  suppose  no  one  will  dispute. 
They  do  not  confer  upon  Congress  any  power 
whatsoever  to  enforce  their  observance.  Then 
follows  the  last  clause  of  section  two,  in  respect 
to  fugitives  from  labor  or  service,  first  quoted. 
And  this,  like  all  the  other  preceding  clauses  of 
this  article,  except  the  first,  is  destitute  of  any 
grant  of  power,  or  even  allusion  to  Congress  or 
the  Federal  Government.  Now,  if  a  grant  of 
power  to  Congress  was  here  intended,  why  this 
silence  ?  If  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  in 
tended  a  grant  of  power  to  Congress  in  this 
clause,  why  did  they  not  say  so,  as  they  did  say 
in  the  first  section,  in  respect  to  "  public  acts, 
records,  and  judicial  proceedings  ?  " 

It  seems  to  me  that  no  rational  answer  can 
be  given  to  this  question,  except  by  a  denial  of 
such  intentions.  Expressio  imius  exclusio  alte- 
rius,  is  a  legal  maxim  as  old  as  the  common 
law.  The  express  mention  of  one  thing  implies 
the  exclusion  of  things  not  mentioned.  It  is 
the  dictate  of  reason  and  common  sense.  It 
is  a  maxim  which  applies  alike  in  the  interpre 
tation  of  contracts,  statutes,  and  constitutions. 
Its  application  was  never  more  obviously 
proper  than  to  the  question  before  us;  and 
when  applied,  it  seems  to  me  to  bring  with 
it  a  force  little  short  of  mathematical  demon 
stration. 

Thus  far  I  have  reasoned  as  if  we  were  ignorant 
of  the  history  of  the  Constitution.  But  a  glance 
at  that  history  confirms  the  conclusions  to  which 
we  are  brought  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  inter 
pretation,  and  makes  "  assurance  doubly 
sure."  .'-•-  •  ••  •>*/>v>.. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation,  under  which 
the  struggle  for  Independence  was  carried 
through,  and  for  which  the  present  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  is  a  substitute  con 
tained  nothing  but  articles  of  compact.  The 
fulfilment  of  its  obligations  was  dependent  upon 
the  faith  of  the  States  alone.  The  Congress 
could  'make  requisitions,  but  had  no  power  to 
enforce  them. 

Again :  Certain  provisions  of  the  ordinance 

of  1787,  for  the  government  of  the  territory 

North-west  of  the  Ohio  River,  were  in  express 

terms  declared  to  be  "  Articles  of  Compact." 

Now,  every  one  of  the  clauses  of  the  fourth 


article  of  the  Constitution  above  quoted,  was 
3orrowed  and  transferred,  with  but  slight  ver 
bal  alterations,  from  the  articles  of  eonfedera- 
ion  and  the  ordinance  of  1 78  7  —  the  first  three 
from  the  former,  and  the  last  from  the  latter  — 
with  this  exception  only,  that  to  the  first  of 
;hese  clauses  was  added  a  grant  of  power  to 
Congress  to  prescribe  the  manner  of  proof  and 
effect  of  public  acts,  records,  and  judicial  pro 
ceedings.  Here,  then,  we  have  certain  articles 
of  compact  —  admitted  or  declared  to  be  such, 
and  nothing  more  —  borrowed  and  transferred 
from  one  instrument  to  another,  with  no  inti 
mation  of  any  change  of  their  character  as  ar 
ticles  of  compact,  except  in  a  single  instance 
where  the  change  is  expressly  declared.  The 
'nference  seems  to  me  to  be  irresistible,  that, 
except  so  far  as  the  change  is  expressly  de- 
lared,  they  remained,  after  the  transfer,  the 
same  as  they  were  before  —  articles  of  compact, 
and  nothing  else. 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  States  are 
bound,  in  fulfilment  of  their  plighted  faith,  and 
through  the  medium  of  their  laws,  legislation, 
and  functionaries,  to  deliver  up  the  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due  under  the  laws 
of  another  State  from  which  the  fugitive  has 
fled.  But  the  Federal  government  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  subject,  and  its  interference  is 
sheer  usurpation  of  a  power  not  granted,  but 
reserved. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  question  is  settled,  and 
our  argument  comes  too  late.  I  deny  that  it 
is  settled. 

The  federal  legislature  has  usurped  a  power 
not  granted  by  the  Constitution,  and  a  federal 
judiciary  has,  through  the  medium  of  reasonings 
lame,  halting,  contradictory,  and  of  far-fetched 
implications,  derived  from  unwarranted  assump 
tions  and  false  history,  sanctioned  the  usurpa 
tion.  I  deny  that  the  decisions  of  a  usurping 
party  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  its  own  assump 
tions,  can  settle  any  thing.  It  is  true  that  the 
courts  and  legislatures  of  several  of  the  States 
have  decided'in  the  same  way ;  but  they  have 
been  decisions  of  acquiescence  rather  than  of 
original  and  independent  inquiry.  The  fact 
that  such  jurists  as  Hornblower,  "YVal  worth,  and 
Webster  thought  on  this  subject  as  I  think, 
shows  that  the  question  is  not  settled.  The  fact 
that  a  majority  of  my  brethren,  as  I  understand 
them,  admit  that  if  this  were  a  new  question 
they  would  be  with  me,  and  that  they  yield  the 
strong  leanings  of  their  own  minds  to  the  force 
of  the  rule  of  res  adjudicata  alone,  proves  that 
this  question  is  not  settled.  The  truth  is,  it  is 
not  until  recently  that  the  mass  of  intelligent 
and  inquiring  mind  in  this  country  has  been 
brought  to  bear  upon  this  question.  It  required 
the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  the  fugitive 
slave  act  of  1850,  overriding  the,  most  sacred 
and  fundamental  guaranties  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  disregarding  in  its  provisions  even  the 
decencies  of  legislation,  as  if  for  the  very  pur- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


229 


pose  of  irritation  and  humiliation,  and  the  fine 
and  imprisonment  under  it  of  white  men  for  the 
exercise  of  the  instinctive  virtues  of  humanity, 
to  awaken  general  inquiry.  That  inquiry  is 
now  going  forward.  And  so  surely  as  the  ma 
tured  convictions  of  the  mass  of  intelligent  mind 
in  this  country  must  ultimately  control  the 
operations  of  government  in  all  its  departments, 
so  surely  is  this  question  not  settled.  When 
it  is  settled  right,  then  it  will  be  settled,  and  not 
till  then. 

But  contemporaneous  construction  is  ap 
pealed  to.  I  admit  its  weight,  and  its  title  to 
respectful  consideration.  But  contemporane 
ous  construction  speaks  with  a  divided  voice. 
It  is  true,  Congress  as  early  as  1793  legislated 
for  the  return  of  fugitives  from  labor.  But 
nearly  if  not  quite  every  one  of  the  old  States 
had  also  legislated  on  the  same  subject  in  ful 
filment  of  what  they  deemed  a  matter  of  con 
stitutional  obligation  resting  on  them.  And 
euch  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  States,  old 
and  new,  continued  until  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  Prigg  case,  so  late  as 
1842  (16  Peters,  539),  assumed  for  the  federal 
government  exclusive  authority  over  the  sub 
ject.  And  those  who  appealed  to  contempora 
neous  construction  should  themselves  respect  it. 
From  the  foundation  of  the  government  until 
•within  the  last  ten  years,  Congress  claimed  and 
exercised  without  question,  full  and  complete 
legislative  power  over  the  territories  of  the  Uni 
ted  States;  and  as  early  as  1828,  in  American 
Insurance  Company  v.  Canters  (1  Peters,  546), 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  delivering  its  opinion,  unani 
mously  decided  that  in  the  territories  Congress 
rightfully  exercises  the  "combined  powers  of 
the  general  and  of  a  State  government."  Yet, 
in  the  recent  case  of  Dred  Scott  y.  Sanford 
(19  Howard,  393),  all  this  is  overturned  and 
disregarded,  and  the  whole  past  theory  and 
practice  of  the  government  in  this  respect  at 
tempted  to  be  revolutionized  by  force  of  a  judi 
cial  ipse  dixit.  We  are  thus  invited  by  that 
Court  back  to  the  consideration  of  first  princi 
ples  ;  and  neither  it  nor  those  who  rely  on  its 
authority  have  a  right  to  complain  if  we  accept 
the  invitation. 

I  know  of  no  -way,  other  than  through  the 
action  of  the  State  governments,  in  which  the 
reserved  rights  and  powers  of  the  States  can  be 
preserved,  and  the  guaranties  of  individual 
liberty  be  vindicated.  The  history  of  this  coun 
try,  brief  as  it  is,  already  shows  that  the  federal 
judiciary  is  never  behind  the  other  departments 
of  that  government,  and  often  foremost,  in  the 
assumption  of  non-granted  powers.  And  let  it 
be  finally  yielded,  that  the  federal  government 
is,  in  the  last  resort,  the  authoritative  judge  of  the 
extent  of  its  own  powers,  and  the  reservations 
and  limitations  of  the  Constitution,  which  the 
framers  of  that  instrument  so  jealously  endeav 
ored  firmly  to  fix  and  guard,  will  soon  be,  if  they 
are  not  already,  obliterated ;  and  that  govern 


ment,  the  sole  possessor  of  the  only  means  of 
revenue,  in  the  employment  of  which  the  peo 
ple  can  be  kept  ignorant  of  the  extent  of  their 
own  burdens,  and  with  its  overshadowing  pat 
ronage,  attracting  to  its  support  the  ambitious 
by  means  of  its  honors,  and  the  mercenary 
through  the  medium  of  its  emoluments,  will 
speedily  become,  if  it  be  not  already,  practically 
omnipotent. 

These  were  my  opinions,  freely  declared,  for 
years  before  I  had  the  honor  of 'a  seat  on  this 
bench;  and,  having  learned  nothing  during  the 
pendency  of  these  cases  to  change,  but  much  to 
confirm  them,  I  know  no  reason  why  I  should 
hesitate  to  avow  them  now. 

I  give  my  voice  in  favor  of  the  discharge  of 
the  relators. 

Judge  SUTLIFF  agreed  with  Judge  BRIX- 
KERIIOFF  in  dissenting  from  the  opinion  of  the 
majority.  His  opinion  was  very  elaborate  and 
full,  but  professional  duties  forbade  his  prepar 
ing  it  for  press  in  season  for  this  work,  and  he 
therefore  favored  us  with  the  following  sylla 
bus: — 

JUDGE   SUTLIFF'S   OPINION. 

SUTLIFF,  J.,  held :  — 

That  the  return  to  the  Tmts,  necessarily 
presented  for  consideration  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  1850,  called  the 
Fugitive  Law.  He  thought  that  if  the  Court 
were  satisfied  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  legislate  for  the 
extradition  of  fugitives  from  service ;  or  even, 
if  having  such  power,  the  lavr  under  which  the 
prisoners  were  held  was  clearly  repugnant  to 
express  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  In  either 
case  the  return  to  the  writ  was  insufficient. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole 
subject,  he  could  not  say  that  he  had  any 
reasonable  doubt  that  this  Act  of  Congress  was 
unconstitutional  upon  both  grounds. 

Upon  the  first  ground  he  insisted  upon  the 
consideration  that  the  legislative  power  being 
in  the  States  respectively  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  the  reasonable  presumption, 
as  well  as  the  express  provision  of  the  tenth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  showed  that 
power  still  remains  with  the  States,  unless  dele 
gated  under  the  Constitution  to  the  Federal 
Government.  And  if  the  power  claimed  by  the 
Federal  Government  to  legislate,  it  is  incum 
bent  to  show  title  thereto,  by  pointing  out  the 
clause  under  which  the  same  had  been  ceded 
by  the  States. 

He  then  referred  to  the  rules  given  by  com 
mentators,  which  were  applicable  to  the  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution.  1st.  That  the 
meaning  of  the  instrument  was  to  be  sought 
for  according  to  the  sense  of  the  terms  and 
understanding  of  the  parties;  that  where  the 
terms  are  clear  and  the  sense  distinct  from  the 
language,  recourse  to  other  means  is  not  ad- 


230 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


missiblc  to  ascertain  the  meaning.  2d.  Where 
the  words  are  not  plain  and  clear,  but  the 
meaning  ambiguous  or  uncertain,  is  the  only 
case  where  interpretation  is  allowable ;  that 
contemporaneous  history,  or  interpretation,  can 
only  be  resorted  to,  to  escape  some  absurd  con 
sequence,  or  guard  against  some  fatal  evil,  etc. 

He  insisted  that  the  meaning  of  the  clause, 
"No  person  held  to  service  or  labor,"  etc., 
under  which  the  power  to  legislate  was  claimed 
for  Congress,  was  neither  uncertain  or  doubt 
ful;  and  that  the  maxim,  "It  is  not  allowable 
to  interpret  what  has  no  need  of  interpretation," 
ought  to  apply ;  that  the  clause  was  a  naked 
compact,  the  same  as  the  two  preceding  clauses, 
which,  while  standing  in  the  Articles  of  Confede 
ration,  had  been  named  and  regarded  as  mere 
compacts.  He  urged  that  power  to  Congress 
.being  expressed  in  section  first  and  section  third 
of  article  four,  and  not  expressed  in  section 
second,  the  maxim  exprcssio  unius,  etc.,  applied 
with  double  force.  He  insisted  that  the  plain 
and  obvious  sense  of  the  clause  was  simply  a 
treaty  stipulation,  the  same  as  the  one  providing 
that"  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
several  States,"  and  was  never  intended,  and 
could  not  have  been  understood;,  to  be  a  cession 
of  powers  to  Congress  to  legislate.  He  denied 
that  contemporaneous  history  was  admissible, 
inasmuch  as  the  people  adopted  the  Constitu 
tion,  not  upon  history  which  was  not  submitted 
to  them,  but  upon  the  letter  of  the  text  which 
was;  and  when  submitted  to  them,  they  must 
be  presumed  to  have  read  and  understood  it 
according  to  its  obvious  meaning. 

Referring,  however,  to  contemporaneous  his 
tory,  he  showed  very  clearly  that  nothing 
could  be  gained  from  that  source,  even  if 
allowable  to  refer  to  it,  to  show  that  it  was 
either  understood  or  intended  that  power  should 
be  delegated  to  Congress  to  legislate  in  rela 
tion  to  fugitives  from  service.  The  Fugitive 
law  of  1793  was  passed  for  the  proposed  object 
of  reclaiming  fugitives  from  justice,  with  very 
little  attention  given  to  the  bill  at  the  time, 
that  the  question  of  power  was  not  considered. 
But  the  States,  on  the  other  hand,  claimed  and 
exercised  the  power  of  legislating  upon  the 
same  subject;  and  the  States  continued  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject  until  the  decision  of 
the  Prigg  case  in  1842. 

He  then  remarked  upon  objectionable  features 
of  the  Fugitive  Law  of  1850 ;  the  commission 
ers  were  vested  with  judicial  powers  unconsti 
tutionally.  By  the  provisions  of  the  law  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  and  due  process  of  law 
were  denied  in  violation  of  express  provisions 
of  the  Constitution ;  that  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  guaranteeing  these  rights,  being 
contained  in  the  amendments  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  they  must  have  full  force,  however  they 
may  qualify  the  right  of  the  claimant  to  a  sum 
mary  removal  of  the  person  owing  service.  He 
remarked  that  the  Fugitive  Law  of  185^  pro 


vided  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service 
in  other  cases  than  that  mentioned  in  the  Con 
stitution  ;  that  while  the  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution  was  only  for  the  delivering  up  of  fugi 
tives  "  held  to  labor  in  one  State  under  the  laws 
thereof,"  the  act  provides  for  the  surrender  of 
fugitives  "  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State," 
merely.  The  act  was  as  general  in  its  terms  as 
any  law  upon  the  statute  book,  and  its  provis 
ions  were  applicable  to  all  other  general  laws, 
to  every  person  within  the  State.  It  was,  there 
fore,  not  only  unconstitutional,  in  that  it  was  en 
acted  without  power,  and  in  authorizing  unrea 
sonable  seizures,  and  in  cases  not  provided  for 
by  the  Constitution,  withholding  due  process  of 
law,  and  denying  a  right  of  trial  by  jury,  etc., 
but  was,  in  its  provisions,  a  flagrant  subversion 
of  the  municipal  laws  of  the  States  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  personal  rights  of  their  citizens. 
In  determining  the  constitutionality  of  the  fugi 
tive  law  under  consideration,  and  upon  which 
the  conviction  and  sentence  rest,  the  act  is  to 
be  regarded  as  one  equally  applicable  to  any 
free  citizen  of  the  State  against  whom  a  claim 
for  service  may  be  preferred  by  the  provisions 
thereof. 

He  referred  to  the  various  judicial  opinions 
expressed,  some  incidentally,  and  others  directly 
in  favor  of  the  authority  of  Congress  to  legis 
late  upon  the  subject  of  fugitives.  The  case  of 
Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania  (16  Peters,  539),  is  the 
only  case  relied  upon  in  which  the  Supremo 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  ever  attempted 
to  offer  any  reason  for  the  claim  of  power  in 
Congress  on  the  subject.  The  question  was  not 
then  necessarily  before  the  Court  for  decision  ; 
their  opinion  expressed  in  that  case  was,  there 
fore,  necessarily,  only  an  obiter  dictum ;  and 
though  expressed  in  favor  of  the  power,  it  was 
only  by  an  acknowledged  disregard  of  the  gen 
eral  rules  of  construction,  applicable  to  the  Con 
stitution,  and  upon  a  mistaken  statement  of  con 
temporaneous  history  ;  and  this,  too,  when  ref 
erence  to  contemporaneous  history  was  not 
admissible,  even  if  correctly  stated.  The  Van 
Zandt  case  (5th  Howard,  229)  was  only  a  re- 
affirmance  of  the  former  opinion ; .  as  is  the 
opinion  recently  pronounced  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States  v.  Booth. 

He  also  referred  to  the  contrary  opinions  as 
maintained  and  expressed  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and. 
Mr.  Madison,  in  their  resolutions  of  1798,  in 
troduced  into  the  legislatures  of  Virginia  and 
Kentucky,  in  relation  to  the  power  of  Congress 
to  pass  "  an  act  concerning  aliens."  He  also 
referred  to  the  opinions  of  Chancellor  Wai- 
worth,  Chief  Justice  Hornblower,  Judge  Bald 
win,  and  Mr.  Webster,  maintaining  that  Con 
gress  had  no  power  to  pass  a  fugitive  law,  in 
sisting  that  the  power  belonged,  under  the 
Constitution,  to  the  States  alone  to  legislate 
upon  the  subject. 

Speaking  of  the  previous  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  upon  the  subject,  and  the  rela 
tions  of  the  State  Judiciary  to  the  Federal,  he  . 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


231 


insisted  that  the  State  and  Federal  Judiciaries 
were  each,  by  the  Constitution,  lefl  independent, 
and  ought  to  act  with  perfect  independence ; 
that  it  was  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  —  in  a  case 
clearly  of  importance  to  the  State  or  its  citizens, 
sufficient  to  justify  such  a  course,  and  under 
circumstances  which  would  dictate  such  exer 
cise  of  their  discretion  —  not  to  suffer  a  ques 
tion  to  be  settled,  as  to  any  case  coming  before 
them,  against  their  clear  convictions  of  the  con 
stitutional  rights  of  the  State,  or  its  citizens. 

He  urged  that  they  would  not  suffer  them 
selves  to  be  thus  governed  by  any  adjudication 
made  by  the  Federal  Court  in  another  case.  This 
was  not  judicial  insubordination,  but  the  judicial 
independence  contemplated  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  which  he  believed  it 
the  duty  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  to 
exercise  in  this  and  all  similar  cases.  It  was  the 
only  position,  in  his  judgment,  peacefully  and 
with  due  respect  towards  the  Federal  Judiciary, 
to  maintain  the  independent  State  sovereignty 
contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  and  to  avoid  an  unconditional  surren 
der  of  the  constitutional  powers  belonging  to  the 
States  whenever  usurped  by  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment. 

Entertaining  these  views,  he  added,  and?  af 
ter  carefully  examining  the  Constitution  and 
the  Act  of  Congress  in  question,  with  the  aid 
of  all  the  reasons  and  light  afforded  by  the  va 
rious  opinions  and  authorities  referred  to,  hav 
ing  no  reasonable  doubt  of  the  unconstitutionality 
of  the  act  upon  which  the  prisoners  had  been 


convicted  and  imprisoned,  that,  in  his  judgment, 
they  ought  to  be  forthwith  discharged. 

The  petition  of  the  relator  from  Cincinnati 
was  dismissed,  as  the  return  showed  that  the 
proceedings  against  him  in  the  United  States 
Court  were  still  pending  and  undetermined. 
The  case  was  similar  to  the  first  application  in 
behalf  of  Mr.  Bushnell. 

The  opinions  were  scarcely  read,  be 
fore  Marshal  JOHNSON  and  District-Attorney 
BELDEN  called  upon  Sheriff  WIGHTMAN  to 
say,  that,  as,  according  to  the  Booth  decision, 
all  interference  of  State  Courts  with  United 
States  prisoners,  by  habeas  corpus  or  otherwise, 
was  unwarrantable  and  illegal ;  the  journey  of 
Bushnell  and  Langston  to  Columbus  wtos  con 
structive  escape  from  jail,  and  he  must  there 
fore  add  six  days  each  to  their  sentences,  to 
compensate  for  the  time  they  had  been  "  at 
large  "  before  the  Supreme  Court.  < 

The  Sheriff'  being  otherwise  advised  by  his 
counsel,  and  assured  that  such  conduct  would  ren 
der  him  liable  for  false  imprisonment  as  well  as  for 
"  constructive  "  contempt  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
declined  obedience  to  this  order,  and  discharged 
Langston  on  the  following  Wednesday,  twenty 
days  having  elapsed  since  the  date  of  his  sen 
tence. 


CHAPTER    FIFTH. 


IN  gratifying  contrast  with  the  charge  of 
Judge  Willson  to  the  Grand  Jury  that  indicted 
the  Rescuers,  we  place  on  record  here,  as  intro 
ductory  to  the 

INDICTMENT    AND   ARREST   OP   THE 
KIDNAPPERS, 

the  manly  charge  of  Judge  Carpenter  to  the 
Lorain  County  Grand  Jury. 

CHARGE  OF  JUDGE  CARPENTER. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Grand  Jury:  —  Your  Pros 
ecuting  Attorney,  as  a  very  pertinent  part  of 
his  duty,  has  requested  me  to  call  your  atten 
tion  to  the  acts  to  prevent  kidnapping.  There 
is  a  statute  against  kidnapping  white  persons. 
Its  provisions  are  plain  and  I  need  only  men 
tion  it. 

The  ^  Statute  passed  April  17,1857,  Sec.  1, 
makes  it  an  indictable  misdemeanor,  to  arrest 
and  imprison  or  kidnap,  or  decoy  out  of  this 
State,  any  free  black  or  mulatto  person,  within 


this  State ;  or  to  attempt  to  kidnap  or  forcibly 
or  fraudulently  carry  off  or  decoy  out  of  this 
State,  any  such  free  black  or  mulatto  with  the 
intention  of  having  such  person  carried  out  of 
this  State,  unless  in  pursuance  of  the  laws 
thereof. 

It  also  (Sec.  2),  makes  it  an  indictable  mis 
demeanor,  to  kidnap  or  forcibly  or  fraudulently 
carry  off  or  decoy  out  of  this  State  any  black 
or  mulatto,  within  this  State,  claimed  as*  a  fugi 
tive  from  service  or  labor ;  or,  to  attempt  to 
kidnap  or  forcibly  or  fraudulently  carry  off  or 
decoy  out  of  this  State,  any  such  black  or  mu 
latto,  without  first  taking  such  black  or  mulatto 
before  the  court,  judge,  or  commissioner  of  the 
proper  circuit,  district,  or  county  having  juris 
diction,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  in  cases  of  persons  held  to  service  or  la 
bor  in  any  State,  escaping  into  this  State,  and 
there,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  establishing  by  proof  the  claimant's 
property  in  such  person. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  statute  contemplates 


232 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


two  classes  of  blacks  and  mulattoes,  the  free 
and  the  not  free :  —  that  the  first  section  pro 
vides  for  the  protection  of  free  blacks  and  mu 
lattoes,  and  that  the  second  section  provides, 
first,  for  the  security  of  the  public  peace  against 
all  provocation  to  break  it  in  revenge,  or  pre 
vention  of  any  abduction  from  this  State  of  any 
black  or  mulatto  not  yet  legally  proved  to  be  a 
slave  —  and,  secondly,  for  the  protection  of  all 
free  blacks  and  mulattoes  in  this  State,  against 
the  hopelessness  of  proving  their  freedom  in 
another  State,  where  complexion  is  presump 
tive  of  their  legal  enslavement,  —  and  against 
the  hopelessness  of  any  immunity  to  them  from 
force,  in  a  State  where  the  legal  status  claimed 
against  them,  has  its  origin  and  maintenance, 
not  in  the  law  of  nature,  but  in  force  alone. 

The  misdemeanor  here  defined,  then,  is  the 
claiming  of  any  black  or  mulatto,  within  Ohio, 
whether  free  or  not  free,  to  be  a  fugitive  from 
service  or  labor,  and  the  getting,  or  attempting 
to  get  him  out  of  Ohio  before  such  claim  has 
been  legally  proved,  with  intent  to  enforce  such 
claim.  The  gist  of  the  oiFence  is  the  getting, 
or  attempting  to  get  him  out  of  the  State  be 
fore  he  is  proved  to  be  a  fugitive  slave,  with  in 
tent  to  hold  him  as  such. 

'  *  The  Constitution  of  Ohio  inhibits  slavery, 
and  regards  all  persons  as  free  except  criminals. 
]Sio  doubt,  however,  the  legislative  intendment 
of  the  second  section  of  this  statute  refers  to 
slavery  as  the  condition  of  certain  persons  in 
other  States,  and  as  the  possible  condition  of 
such  persons  in  Ohio,  for  the  purpose  of  recap 
tion  and  return  only,  in  case  of  their  escape 
from  that  condition  in  another  State  into  thi*. 

This,  being  a  criminal  statute,  must  be  con 
strued  somewhat  strictly  against  the  State. 
Passing  over  the  question,  then  (upon  which 
much  might  be  pertinently  and  strongly  said), 
whether  any  person  in  Ohio,  not  charged  with 
crime,  can  *be  legally  otherwise  than  free,  we 
must  give  to  any  one  indicted  under  this  statute, 
the  benefits  of  this  strict  construction. 

But  this  statute  recognizing  the  possibility  of 
finding  a  fugitive  in  Ohio  liable  to  be  seized 
and  returned  into  slavery,  it  may  become  im 
portant  in  your  inquest,  to  know  when  there 
arises  a  legal  presumption  of  this  liability,  and 
what  are  the  legal  presumptions  to  the  contrary. 

Who,  then,  is  presumed  to  be  free  ?  Every 
body.  Every  man,  woman,  and  child,  in  Ohio, 
of  whatever  birth,  descent,  parentage,  com 
plexion,  or  conformation,  is  presumed  in  law  to 
be  free.  Whoever  interferes  with  this  freedom 
is  presumed  to  do  it  in  violation  of  law.  Who 
ever  is  charged  with  such  interference  must 
deny  the  charge,  or  show  his  authority  for  the 
interference,  or  be  held  guilty.  If  the  inter 
ference  is  proved  against  him,  the  legal  pre 
sumption  then  is,  that  he  has  violated  the  law ; 
and  it  devolves  on  him  to  show  his  right  to  in 
terfere. 

It  would  not  change  this  presumption,  to  show 
that  the  prisoner  had  been  a  slave  in  a  slave 


State,  and  stop  there.  For,  giving  to  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  the  loosest  con 
struction,  the  utmost  latitude  for  slavery,  which 
has  ever  been  given  it  by  any  authoritative 
decision,  the  only  possible  case  of  a  legal  liabil 
ity  to  be  arrested  and  returned  into  slavery 
from  within  the  boundary  of  Ohio,  is  that  of  a 
fugitive  slave  escaping  out  of  a  slave  State  into 
Ohio.  He  must  come  into  Ohio  in  the  act  of 
escaping  —  a  fugitive,  —  and  this  fugitive  char 
acter  must  belong  to  him  at  the  moment  he  en 
ters  the  confines  of  Ohio,  or  he  leaves  the  status 
of  a  slave  where  he  leaves  the  slave  State.  For, 
by  the  decisions  of  all  civilized  nations,  slavery 
is  against  natural  rights,  and  can  exist  only  by 
positive  law.  This,  until  very  recently,  has 
been  the  authoritative  doctrine  of  our  slave- 
holding  States,  as  well  as  of  all  others.  Slavery, 
then,  being  against  the  law  of  nature,  and  ex 
isting  only  by  positive  local  law,  it  is  clear  that 
this  positive  local  law  cannot  extend  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  power  which  makes  it.  It  is 
equally  clear,  that  the  right  of  this  local  law  to 
hold  a  slave  cannot  go  farther  than  this  law  can 
go  itself;  that  the  slave,  having  a  natural  right 
to  freedom,  and  being  held  a  slave  only  by  a 
local  law  which  violates  that  right,  the  moment 
he  is  beyond  the  arm  of  that  local  law,  his 
natural  right  to  freedom  resumes  its  empire. 
The  instant,  therefore,  the  slave,  by  any  means 
not  as  a  fugitive,  crosses  our  boundary,  he  is 
baptized  in  the  air  of  freedom ;  and  that  bap 
tism  is  irrevocable. 

The  law  of  Kentucky  cannot  of  itself  reach 
into  Ohio.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  the  construction  adopted 
by  this  statute,  extends  the  slave  law  of  Ken 
tucky  into  Ohio,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  recap 
tion  and  return  in  case  of  the  slave's  escape 
into  Ohio,  and  only  in  such  case  —  and  that  too, 
with  such  executory  modifications  as  the  State 
of  Ohio  has  found  it  prudent  to  enact  for  the 
safeguard  of  its  own  citizens.  But,  that  A  is 
admitted  to  have  been  a  slave  yesterday  in 
Kentucky  and  is  found  to-day  in  Ohio,  raises 
no  presumption  that  he  came  into  Ohio  by  an 
illegal  escape.  Whatever  a  man  does  which  in 
himself  is  not  unlawful,  the  law  presumes  him  to 
do  innocently.  We  cannot,  therefore,  legally 
presume  because  he  was  yesterday  a  slave  in 
Kentucky,  and  to-day  is  in  Ohio,  that  he  came 
here  in  violation  of  law  —  even  of  the  slave 
law.  The  legal  presumption  is  rather  that  he 
came  here,  as  lawfully  he  might,  by  consent  of 
his  master.  Or,  if  that  presumption  should  be 
rebutted  by  evidence,  then  the  legal  presump 
tion  would  be  that  he  came  here  by  the  act  of 
God  —  by  the  winds  or  the  waves,  in  spite  of 
himself — unless  there  were  some  evidence 
pointing  to  a  different  conclusion.  For,  I  can 
not  hold  the  mere  facts  that  a  man  was  a  prison 
er  in  Kentucky  yesterday,  and  is  at  large  in 
Ohio  to-day,  to  be  any  evidence  that  his  enlarge 
ment  is  illegal. 

Certainly,  the  slave's  coming  here  by  the  act 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


233 


of  God,  is  not  an  escape.  And  since  the  slave 
status  can  exist  only  by  the  concomitancy  of 
the  Slave  law,  and  since  the  Slave  law  can  be 
concomitant  with  his  person  here  only  by  the 
slave's  escaping  hither,  his  coming  here  by  the 
act  of  God  must  leave  his  status  as  a  slave  be 
hind  him,  and  invest  him  with  the  inevitable 
status  of  a  freeman. 

Nor  ought  the  master  to  complain  of  this  in 
evitable  necessity.  Ought  he  to  complain  of 
inevitable  death  ?  And,  if  not,  he  ought  not 
to  complain  of  an  act  of  God  which  releases 
him  with  no  worse  result  to  the  master,  but  a 
result  always  due  a  slave  by  the  law  of  nature? 
Should  the  whirlwind  which  releases  the  slave 
by  death  be  blameless,  and  the  whirlwind  which 
stops  short  of  death,  but  drops  him  in  a  free 
State,  be  blamable  ?  In  each  case,  the  Slave, 
law  would  end  because  the  slave  was  beyond  its 
jurisdiction  by  the  act  of  God. 

Is  there  any  thing,  then,  in  the  case,  which 
should  palsy  our  law,  whenever  the  man  thus 
freed  might  claim  its  protection  ?  Neither  the 
law  of  nature,  nor  the  common  law,  nor  any 
enactment,  nor  any  comity  of  State,  indicates 
any  such  thing. 

If,  then,  the  evidence  should  convince  you 
of  an  attempt  forcibly  or  fraudulently  to  carry 
off  or  decoy  out  of  this  State  any  black  or  mu 
latto,  or  to  arrest  or  imprison  any  such  person, 
•with  intent  to  have  him  carried  out  of  this  State, 
not  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  Ohio,  and  if 
you  do  not  find  from  evidence  that  he  came  in 
to  Ohio  by  an  actual  escape  from  service  or 
labor,  whatever  the  proof  may  be  that  he  had 
been  a  slave,  you  will  hold  him  to  be  free,  and 
that  the  act  described  was  a  misdemeanor,  for 
•which  you  will  indict  whomsoever  you  find  to 
have  committed  it 

In  this  position,  that  the  law  presumes  every 
man  in  Ohio  to  be  free,  I  am  upheld  by  the 
Constitution  of  this  State,  as  well  as  by  that  of 
the  United  States. 

Our  Bill  of  Rights  begins,  "  Sec.  1.  All  men 
are  by  nature  free  and  independent.  Sec.  2. 
All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people. 
Government  is  instituted  for  their  equal  protec 
tion  and  benefit." 

Does  any  caviller  pretend  that  the  words, 
"  all  men,"  in  the  first  section,  and  in  the  second, 
"  people,"  for  whose  equal  protection  and  bene 
fit  government  has  been  instituted,  were  meant 
to  exclude  blacks  and  mulattoes  ?  In  article 
five,  section  one,  we  find,  "  Every  white  male 
citizen  of  the  United  States  of  the  age  of  twen 
ty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a  resident  of 
the  State  one  year,  ....  shall  ....  be  enti 
tled^  to  vote  at  all  elections." 

Now  the  word  "  white  "  here  describes  cer 
tain  male  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
distinguishes  them  from  certain  male  citizens 
of  ^the  United  States  of  some  other  color. 
This  conclusion  is  inevitable  from  the  lan 
guage.  But  neither,  in  their  legislative  nor  in 
their  judicial  acts,  nor  in  their  common  speech, 

30 


have  the  people  of  Ohio  distinguished  any 
other  resident  person  in  respect  of  color,  than 
whites,  blacks,  and  mulattoes.  By  necessary 
implication,  those  male  citizens  of  the  United 
States  in  Ohio  who  are  not  entitled  to  vote 
at  all  elections,  are  not  whites,  but  are  blacks 
or  mulattoes.  Did  the  people  of  Ohio,  in 
adopting  their  Constitution,  mean  to  exclude 
from  their  Bill  of  Rights  men  whom,  in  the 
same  instrument,  they  declared  to  be  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States  !  Not  at  all.  This 
construction  is  confirmed  by  article  nine,  sec 
tion  one,  — "  All  white  male  citizens  residents 
of  this  State  ....  shall  be  enrolled  in  the 
militia,"  etc.  Now,  here  it  is  provided  that 
those  who  are  to  be  enrolled  shall  be  made  citi 
zens,  be  residents,  be  whites.  But  this  neces 
sarily  implies,  first,  that  there  are  male  citizens 
here  who  are  not  residents  of  this  State;  and, 
therefore,  this  word  "  citizens,"  must  here  proba 
bly  mean  citizens  of  the  United  States :  and,  sec 
ondly,  that  there  may  be  citizens  of  the  United 
States  here  Avho  are  not  whites,  and,  therefore, 
are  either  blacks  or  mulattoes.  Or  if  the  word 
"  citizens  "  here  means  citizens  of  Ohio,  then 
blacks  and  mulattoes  may  be  citizens  of  Ohio. 

This  presumption  of  universal  freedom  is  sup 
ported  by  the  common  sentiment  which  gave 
our  nation  birth ;  and  which,  therefore,  may 
well  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  our  common  law. 
It  is  expressed  in  our  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence,  —  a  declaration  of  no  new  discoveries. 
It  was  but  the  utterance  of  principles  so  com 
mon,  so  pervasive  and  so  long  felt  that  they 
were  there  set  forth  as  an  indisputable  law  of 
human  nature.  I  know  that  there  is  a  puerile 
cavil,  that  the  language  —  "All  men  are  cre 
ated  equal,  and  are  endowed  by  their  Crea 
tor  with  certain  unalienable  rights  —  among 
these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  hap 
piness  "  —  was  not  intended  to  include  black 
men.  It  requires  more  than  ordinary  patience 
to  answer  this  cavil,  when  we  remember  that 
the  very  point  in  dispute  between  the  colonies 
and  the  mother  country  was  whether  the  sov 
ereignty  of  Great  Britain  was  illimitable,  or  was 
limited  by  the  equal  and  unalienable  rights  of 
all  mankind ;  the  administration  claiming  that 
the  sovereignty  of  the  King  and  Parliament 
was  without  limitation  over  its  subjects,  and  the 
colonists  replying  that  human  sovereignty  was 
always  limited  by  the  equal  rights  of  all  its  sub 
jects,  —  the  unalienable  rights  of  all  mankind. 

They  claimed  that  whenever  human  sover 
eignty  so  overstepped  its  lawful  sphere  as  to 
trample  upon  these  unalienable  rights,  it  was 
itself  a  rebel  against  the  law  that  limits  it,  and 
might  be  lawfully  overthrown.  And  when  ar 
gument  was  exhausted,  and  they  stood  upon 
their  rights,  they  held  forth  these  self-evident 
truths,  and  made  their  appeal  upon  them  to  all 
the  world.  If,  from  these  unalienable  rights,' 
their  language  had  excluded  any  part  of  the 
human  race,  their  appeal  would  have  been  a 
mockery. 


234 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


nine  days,  when  I  brought  them  before  the 
Court  as  within  I  am  commanded. 

H.  E.  BURR,  Sheriff. 


This  indictment  being  found  defective  in  the 
orthography  of   Mr.  Mitchell's   first 
new  one  was  returned  as  follows :  — 


name,  a 


The  State  of  Ohio,  } 
Lorain  County,     J 

At  a  term  of  the 
beun   and    holden 


Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
at   the    Court   House,   in 


The  second  section  of  this  statute,  as  before 
stated,  provides  for  the  case  of  one  claimed  as 
a  fugitive  from  service  or  labor,  and  prohibits 
any  attempt  to  get  him  out  of  the  State,  ex 
cept  as  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the  United 
States. 

It  is  very  probable  the  highest  judicial  au 
thority  of  Ohio  would  hold  so  much  of  that 
United  States  statute,  known  as  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  as  authorizes  the  recaption  and 
return  of  one  claimed  as  a  fugitive  without  the 
trial  by  jury,  to  be  unconstitutional.  But,  as 
this  criminal  statute  seems  to  recognize  that 
provision  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  as  valid, 
we  pass  by  that  question,  to  note  what,  if  it  is 
not  more  favorable  to  liberty,  is,  at  least,  less 
favorable  to  tyranny.  The  only  person  au 
thorized  by  that  act,  to  pursue  and  reclaim 
such  fugitive,  either  by  warrant,  or  by  seizing 
him  without  warrant,  is,  first,  the  master,  or, 
secondly,  "  his  agent  or  attorney,  duly  author 
ized  by  power  of  attorney,  in  writing,  ac 
knowledged  and  certified  under  the  seal  of  some 
legal  officer  or  court  of  the  State  or  Territory 
in.  which  the  same  may  be  executed." 

Any  person  but  the  master  of  the  actual 
fugitive,  or  his  agent  or  attorney,  authorized  in 
every  particular  as  above  stated  —  by  power  of 
attorney,  in  writing,  acknowledged  and  certi 
fied  under  seal  strictly  as  prescribed  by  the 
statute  —  any  person,  but  the  master,  not  thus 
fortified  as  agent,  who,  claiming  such  fugitive, 
has,  within  this  county,  done  or  attempted  as 
expressed  in  this  criminal  statute  by  process  of 
the  United  States  or  without  it,  violated  the  law 
of  Ohio,  and  should  be  indicted  at  your  hands. 
^  He  who  handles  edge  tools  must  run  the 
risk  of  cutting  his  own  flesh.  The  severity  of 
that  old  judge,  who,  if  the  extortioner  would 
have  his  pound  of  flesh,  because  it  was  so  nom 
inated  in  the  bond,  would  hold  his  life  the  for 
feit  if  he  shed  one  drop  of  blood,  was  but  the 
severity  of  simple  justice. 

On  the  15th  of  February,  1859,  the  Grand 
Jury,  thus  charged,  returned  a  true  bill  against 
Rufus  P.  Mitchell,  Anderson  Jennings,  Jacob 
K.  Lowe,  and  Samuel  Davis,  for  kidnapping 
and  attempting  to  carry  out  of  the  State  in  an 
unlawful  manner,  a  negro  boy  named  John 
Price. 

Upon  this  a  warrant  was  issued  to  the  sheriff 
of  Lorain  county,  which  he  returned  indorsed 
thus :  — 

State  of  Ohio,  ? 
Lorain  County, )  St> 

I  executed  this  writ  by  taking  the  body  of 
the  within  named  Anderson  Jennings,  Samuel 
Davis,  and  Rufus  P.  Mitchell,  May  11,  1859, 

and  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  April  4,   1859,  and  re- I  said  John  "Price,  without  the  "consent  of  the 
tained  them  in  my  custody  for  the  period  of!  said  John  Price,  and  against  his  will,  and  coi>. 


Elyria,  within  and  for  the  County  of  Lorain. 
an'd  State  of  Ohio,  on  the  seventeenth  day  o* 
May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-nine,  the  Jurors  of  the 
(jrand  Jury,  ,good  and  lawful  men  of  the 
county  aforesaid,  then  and  there  duly  returned, 
tried  and  sworn,  and  charged  to  inquire  within 
and  for  the  body  of  the  county  aforesaid,  at 
the  term  of  the  Court  aforesaid,  upon  their 
oaths  aforesaid,  and  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  State  aforesaid,  do  find  and 
present,  that  Anderson  Jennings,  Jacob  K, 
Lowe,  Samuel  Davis,  and  Richard  P.  Mitchell, 
on  the  thirteenth  day  of  September  in  the  vear 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-eight, 
with  force  and  arms  at  the  county  aforesaid, 
unlawfully  did  arrest  and  imprison  one  John 
Price,  the  said  John  Price  then  and  there  being 
a  free  black  person  then  and  there  within  the 
State  of  Ohio,  with  intent  then  and  there  and 
thereby  of  having  said  John  Price  carried  out 
of  the  said  State  of  Ohio  ;  the  same  not  being 
in  pursuance  of  any  law  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such 
cases  made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace 
and  dignity  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid  on  their  oaths 
aforesaid  do  farther  present  and  find  that  the 
said  Anderson  Jennings,  Jacob  K.  Lowe,  Sam 
uel  Davis  and  Richard  P.  Mitchell  on  the  thir 
teenth  day  of  September  in  the  year 


on& 


thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-eight,  at  tho 
county  aforesaid,  one  John  Price  then  and 
there  being,  the  said  John  Price  being  a  black 
person  then  and  there  within  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  claimed  as  a  fugitive  from  service,  did  then 
and  there  with  force  and  arms  unlawfully  and' 
forcibly  attempt  to  kidnap  and  carry  off  out  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  without  first  taking  him,  the 
said  John  Price,  before  the  Court,  Judge,  or 
Commissioner  of  the  proper  circuit,  district,  or 
county  having  jurisdiction  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  in  cases  of  persons 
held  to  seryice  or  labor,  in  any  of  the  TJnited 
States,  escaping  into  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 
then  and  the/e  having  jurisdiction  according  to 
said  laws  in  the  case  of  said  John  Price  so 
claimed  as  a  fugitive  from  service,  and  then 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
I  establishing  by  proof  their  property  in  him  the 


OBERLIN- WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


235 


trary  to  tlie  fonn  of  the  statute  in  such  cases 
made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  and 
dignity  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

AV.  AV.  BOYXTOX,  Prosecuting  Attorney. 

And  hereupon  a  new  warrant  was  Issued :  — 

The  State  of  Ohio,  7  gg 

Lorain  County,     ) 
To   the    Sheriff    of   said   County   of   Lorain, 

GREETING  : 

AATe  command  you  that  you  take  An- 
[SKAL.]  derson  Jennings,  Jacob  K.  Lowe, 
Samuel  Davis,  and  Richard  P.  ISlitch- 
ell,  if  they  be  found  in  your  bailiwick,  and 
them  safely  keep  so  that  you  have  them  before 
our  COURT  OF  COMMON  PLEAS  at  the  Court 
House,  in  the  Town  of  Elyria,  in  and  for  said 
County,  on  the  18th  day  of  May,  1859,  to  an 
swer  an  indictment  for  kidnapping  John  Price. 

Herein  fail  not,  but  of  this  writ  and  your 
service  thereof  make  due  return.  Witness 
Roswell  G.  Horr,  Clerk  of  our  said  Court,  at 
Elyria,  this  18th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1859. 

ROSWELL  G.  HORR,  Clerk. 

' —  which  was  indorsed  in  due  form  as  hav 
ing  been  served  and  returned  on  the  day  of  its 
date. 

The  Journal  entry  of  the  Court  is  as  fol 
lows  :  — 

The  State  of  Ohio, ) 

v.  [-May  19,  1859. 

Anderson  Jennings.) 

This  cause  came  up  for  hearing,  upon  de 
fendants'  motion  for  a  continuance,  upon  con 
sideration  of  which  the  Court  overruled  said 
motion,  and  set  the  case  down  for  trial  at  the 
present  term  on  the  6th  day  of  July  next. 
And  thereupon  came  the  defendants  and  moved 
the  Court  to  grant  them  a  separate  trial,  on 
consideration  of  which  the  Court  overruled 
said  motion.  It  was  farther  ordered  that  said 
defendants  be  released  from  custody  on  enter 
ing  into  bail  for  their  appearance  with  good 
and  sufficient  surety  in  the  sum  of  eight  hun 
dred  dollars  each. 

O.  S.  AVadsworth,  Joseph  L.  AVhiton,  and 
Malachi  AVarrcn  thereupon  became  surety  in 
the  sum  of  S3, 200  for  the  appearance  of  the 
defendants  for  trial  on  the  day  named. 

To  Roswell  G.  Ilorr,  Esq.,  Clerk  of  the 
Court,  we  are  indebted  for  certified  copies  of 
all  the  proceedings  in  this  case. 

AVe  have  next  the  history  of  another  kid 
napping  case,  which  is  of  interest  in  this  par 
ticular  connection.  It  was  compiled  from  orig 
inal  documents,  or  certified  copies,  by  the 
Editors  of  the  Cleveland  Leader,  and,  making 


due  acknowledgments,  we  avail  ourselves  of  the 
results  of  their  labors. 

We  quote  from  the  columns  of  the  Leader 
without  alteration :  — 

TRUTH  OF   HISTORY   VINDICATED. 

Being  full  accounts  of  U.  S.  District  Judge  Wilt- 
son's  connection  with  the  Kidnapping  of  a 
colored  boy  in  the  year  1841  — a  copy  of  the 
Indictment  found  against  Jackson,  Lindenber- 
ger,  and  Willson,  for  Kidnapping  —  and  a 
copy  of  the  Requisition  made  by  the  Governor 
of  New  York  on  the  Governor  of  Ohio  for  the 
Kidnappers  ! 

[From  the  Akron  Beacon.] 

FUGITIVES  FROM  JUSTICE  AND  FUGI 
TIVES  FROM  SERVICE.  —  At  the  term  of  the 
United  States  District  Court,  at  Cleveland,  as 
our  readers  know,  some  thirty-seven  citizens  of 
Lorain  county,  were  indicted  for  rescuing,  or 
aiding  and  abetting  in  the  rescue  of  a  maa 
claimed  as  a  fugitive  slave  at  AVellington.  It  is 
charged  that  one  of  the  Grand  Jury  was  the 
person  who  through  the  agency  of  his  son,  en 
trapped  the  negro  in  question,  decoying  him 
under  pretence  of  employing  him  to  work.  The 
charge  of  Judge  AVillson  to  the  Grand  Jury 
was  published  in  the  Cleveland  papers,  and  fur 
nished  the  subject  of  not  a  little  comment.  The 
Leader,  in  connection  with  the  proceedings, 
observed  that  "  a  tale  could  be  unfolded  touch 
ing  an  indictment  in  Erie  county,  New  York, 
for  violating  the  laws  of  that  State,  by  aiding 
and  abetting  in  kidnapping  a  colored  man 
from  Buffalo,  for  the  purpose  of  returning  him 
to  slavery." 

The  facts  referred  to  by  the  Leader,  if  fully 
narrated,  tend  to  throw  light  upon  some  of  the 
"  antecedents  "  and  "  proclivities  "  of  certain 
persons  who  have  been  and  are  prominent  be 
fore  the  public. 

In  1 84 1 ,  Henry  B.  Payne  and  Hiram  V.  AVill 
son  were  practising  law  in  Cleveland,  under 
the  firm  name  of  Payne  &  AVillson.  J.  AV. 
Gray,  now  of  the  Cleveland  Plaindealer,  was  a 
student  of  law  in  that  office. 

Henry  Jackson,  a  mulatto,  kept  a  barber  shop 
in  Cleveland.  In  the  summer  of  that  year,  two 
fugitives  from  service,  from  Louisiana,  we  be 
lieve,  were  staying  with  Jackson,  in  his  employ. 
They  had  confided  their  story  and  the  name  of 
the  party  from  whom  they  escaped,  to  their  em 
ployer,  Jackson. 

In  consequence  of  some  disagreement,  they 
left  Jackson  and  sought  employment  elsewhere  ; 
one  of  them,  Alek,  a  likely  mulatto,  as  a  barber 
in  Buffalo ;  the  other  as  a  cook  on  the  steamer 
Be  AVitt  Clinton. 

Enraged  at  their  leaving  him,  Jackson  went 
to  the  office  of  Payne  &  Willson,  and  disclosed 
their  entire  story,  and,  perhaps  hoping  to  get  a 
reward,  procured  a  letter  to  be  written  to  their 
owner  or  claimant  in  Louisiana. 


236 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


The  State  fugitive  law  was  then  in  force  in 
Ohio :  —  "  An  Act  in  relation  to  fugitives  from 
service  and  labor  "  passed  by  the  Legislature  of 
1838-9.  (In  the  Prigg  case  it  was  afterwards 
decided  that  all  such  legislation  by  the  States 
was  unconstitutional,  and  this  act  was  re 
pealed.)  It  was  then  a  cheap  and  convenient 
process  of  rendition. 

In  due  time  Mr.  Vernon  Lintenberger,  of 
Louisiana,  appeared  in  Cleveland  with  the  evi 
dences  of  title,  and  with  authority  to  reclaim 
the  fugitives.  The  public  mind  was  somewhat 
sensitive  at  such  transactions  then,  and  it  was 
desirable  to  secure  the  two  in  the  same  boat, 
and  dispose  of  both  cases  at  once.  Linten 
berger  ibund  shrewd  advisers.  A  warrant  for 
the  arrest  of  the  boys  was  issued  by  Justice 
Hoadley,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  an  officer, 
we  believe,  named  Wait. 

To  get  Alek  from  Buffalo  to  Cleveland  re 
quired  dexterous  management.  But  Linten 
berger,  the  barber,  Jackson,  and  the  attorneys, 
were  equal  to  the  emergency.  The  two  first 
named  and  H.  V.  Willson,  Esq.,  went  to 
Buffalo.  Arriving  there,  Jackson  went  to  per 
suade  Alek  to  come  back  to  Cleveland  with 
him  on  the  De  Witt  Clinton;  assuring  him 
that  Mr.  Hanks,  the  painter,  was  anxious  to 
take  him  as  an  apprentice,  and  that  if  he  would 
go  at  once  ho,  would  secure  this  desirable  situa 
tion,  and  that  the  opportunity  was  too  good  to 
be  lost  by  delay. 

Alek's  objections  were  overcome,  Jackson 
promising  to  pay  his  passage  money,  etc.,  and 
thus  he  was  decoyed  on  board  the  De  Witt 
Clinton,  his  fellow  fugitive  being  a  cook  on  the 
same  boat,  and  the  whole  party  returned.  Ar 
riving  at  Cleveland,  Jackson  in  a  friendly  way 
conducted  Alek  up  the  street,  where,  by  pre 
concert,  the  officer  was  waiting  for  him,  and 
securing  him,  they  proceeded  to  the  boat  and 
arrested  the  other.  Thus  they  were  captured 
together,  which  was  an  important  point  gained. 
They  were  placed  in  the  jail  for  safe  detention, 
and  the  jailer  was  directed  —  so  it  was  reported 
—  to  allow  no  person  access  to  them.  The 
arrest  was  made  about  the  third  of  September, 
1841, 

A  lialeas  corpus  was  sued  out  on  their  behalf 
by  Thomas  Bolton,  Esq.,  now  President  Judge 
of  the  Common  Pleas,  who  being  then  prosecu 
tor  of  the  County,  had  no  difficulty  in  gaining 
access  to  the  prisoners.  The  habeas  corpus  was 
returnable  before  Judges  Josiah  Barber  and 
Fred.  Whittlescy.  For  some  reason,  we  do 
not  recollect  precisely  what,  the  hearing  upon 
the  habeas  corpus  was  postponed,  and  the  boys 
held  in  $1,000  each.  One  of  them,  Alek,  was 
bailed  out  temporarily  by  John  Brown,  a  well- 
known  barber  in  Cleveland,  for  the  purpose, 
we  think,  of  enabling  him  to  go  to  Buffalo,  to 
make  complaint  before  the  Grand  Jury  of  Erie 
County,  New  York,  against  his  abductors. 
Two  gentlemen,  whose  names  it  is  needless  to 
give,  went  also  to  Buffalo  upon  the  same 


errand.  Mr.  Rogers,  of  Buffalo,  was  then  Dis 
trict-Attorney.  A  bill  of  indictment  was  found 
against  Vernon  Littenberger,  Henry  Jackson, 
and  Hiram  V.  Willson,  for  kidnapping  or  aid 
ing  and  assisting  in  the  kidnapping  of  Alek. 

A  requisition  was  made  by  the  Governor  of 
New  York  upon  the  Governor  of  Ohio  for  tho 
surrender  of  these  three  "  fugitives  from  jus 
tice,"  and  about  the  15th  day  of  September  an 
officer  came  up  from  Buffalo  to  receive  them. 

By  some  means —  supposed  to  be  by  a  friendly 
whisper  from  one  of  the  Deputy-Sheriffs  — 
Lintenberger  got  wind  of  the  proceedings,  and 
disappeared.  Jackson  also  vamosed.  He  af 
terwards  located  at  Cincinnati,  where  he  resided 
up  to  the  time  of  his  death,  a  year  or  two  since. 
The  proceedings  as  to  Mr.  Willson  were  drop 
ped,  the  principal  in  the  affair  having  escaped. 

In  a  general  jail  breaking,  Alek,  who  had 
been  again  put  in  jail,  escaped  without  waiting 
for  the  hearing  in  habeas  corpus.  The  other — 
if  we  mistake  not  —  was  discharged  on  account 
of  some  informality  or  defect  in  the  title  papers 
or  proceedings. 

Nothing  is  known  of  their  fortunes  thereafter. 

Lintenberger  is  equally  unknown  to  present 
fame. 

H.  V.  Willson  is  now  Judge  of  the  United 
States  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District 
of  Ohio. 

Jackson,  as  already  stated,  is  dead. 

The  tale  is  told  fairly,  though,  perhaps,  in 
some  points  imperfectly.  *  We  do  not  know  that 
it  demands  any  comment  from  us,  further  than 
to  say  that  it  shows  that  the  "  fugitive  from  jus 
tice  "  clause,  like  the  "  fugitive  from  service 
and  labor  "  clause,  has  sometimes,  through  con 
nivance,  failed  of  complete  execution. 


From  the  Cincinnati  Philanthropist,  of  Nov.  10th,  1841. 
BASENESS. 

Cleveland,  Oct.  12,  1841. 

Dr.  Bailey:  —  As  much  interest  has  been 
excited  in  the  case  of  the  two  colored  persons, 
recently  kidnapped  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
I  now  forward  you  a  short  account  of  this  atro 
cious  transaction,  with  the  names  of  those  con 
cerned. 

In  August,  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  Linden- 
berger,  from  Louisiana,  an  expelled  officer  from 
the  United  States  army,  and  a  regular  slave- 
hunter,  came  to  this  city.  He  called  on  one 
Jackson,  a  mulatto  barber,  and  presented  him 
with  two  dollars,  thereby  obtaining  his  confi 
dence,  and  from  him  learned  that  he,  Jackson, 
had  employed  a  vellow  boy  by  the  name  of 
Williams,  then  living  in  Buffalo,  and  also  that 
the  barber  had  assisted  fugitives  on  the  way  to 
the  land  of  liberty.  The  hunter  now  sought 
for  and  found  suitable  persons  to  aid  him  in  his 
vile  project,  in  the  firm  of  Payne  &  Willson, 
(H.  B.  Payne  and  H.  V.  Willson,  technically 
known  by  the  name  of  "  Fogg  &  Dodson.")  .  . 


OBERLIX-WELLINGTON  EESCUE. 


237 


It  is 

unnecessary  to  detail  the  black  tissues  of  false 
hood  with  which  the  yellow  boy  Williams,  and 
another  colored  man  were  inveigled  to  this 
city.  Upon  landing,  the  yellow  boy  was  di 
rected  to  some  distance,  where  he  was  seized 
by  the  jailer,  whose  Christian  name  is  "  Lib 
erty  ! "  [Waite.]  The  victims  were  put  into  a 
carriage,  and  hurried  to  the  house  of  Associate 
Judge  Barber,  who  it  was  expected  would  order 
the  boy  into  bondage.  Fortunately,  the  Judge 
was  absent.  The  county  jail,  built  by  the 
money  of  freemen,  was  now  opened  to  secure 
these  kidnapped  victims  of  tyranny.  On  the 
following  day  they  were  brought  before  Judge 
Barber,  when  the  Court  adjourned  for  a  fort 
night.  Messrs.  Bolton,  Foote,  Stetson,  Wade, 
and  Welles  appeared  for  the  defence.  Payne  & 
Willson,  and  Horace  Foote  for  the  kidnappers. 
A  demand  in  due  form  had  in  the  mean  time 
been  made  by  the  proper  authorities  in  Buffalo, 
for  the  slave-hunters  and  their  accomplice, 
Jackson.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  issued 
by  Judge  Barber,  and  the  warrant  of  the 
magistrate  for  the  arrest  of  the  defendants,  de 
clared  to  be  deficient,  contrary  to  the  opinion 
of  both  Associates,  who  advised  with  him,  one 
of  whom  is  a  gentleman  of  legal  attainments. 
This  cause  was  now  abandoned  by  the  counsel 
for  the  oppressed,  for  obvious  reasons,  and  Wil 
liams  gave  bail  in  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dol 
lars  for  his  appearance  on  the  following  Friday. 
The  bail  were  three  colored  men.  One  was 
ample.  It  was  thought  best  to  release  the  boy 
in  the  evening,  when  lo  !  "  Liberty  "  [Waite], 
the  turnkey,  refused  to  let  him  out  without  the 
order  of  the  Sheriff,  and  the  Sheriff  demanded 
a  special  order  from  Judge  Barber.  The  Clerk 
made  out  and  gave  an  order  for  carrying  out 
the  decision  of  the  Court,  regarding  the  boy, 
but  Payne,  the  lawyer,  opposed  it  so  violently, 
that  he  finally  took  it  back.  The  Judge  was 
then  called  in,  when  he  said  that  since  he  had 
accepted  the  bail,  he  had  learned  that  they  were 
colored  persons,  but  that  he  would  attend  to  it 
on  Monday  morning  at  9  o'clock,  although  he 
had  previously  approved  of  the  bail,  as  also  had 
Judge  Whittlescy,  and  the  Prosecuting  Attor 
ney  for  the  county.  By  this  measure  two  days 
out  of  six  were  lost,  which  the  boy  expected  to 
have  to  undertake  a  journey  of  400  miles  and 
appear  ^  before  a  grand  jury  in  Buffalo,  and 
have  his  wrongs  redressed,  and  his  oppressors 
punished.^  On  Monday  morning,  Williams's 
friends  disdaining  to  have  him  liberated  by  a 
man  whose  conduct  every  candid  lawyer  in  the 
community  deemed  infamous,  obtained  a  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  from  Judge  Whittlesey,  and 
obtained  his  discharge  on  bail,  when  he  and 
one  of  his  bail  started  for  Buffalo.  It  happened 
that  Payne  embarked  in  the  same  boat,  and 
accompanied  them  to  their  place  of  destination. 
An  incident  occurred  on  the  boat  which  fully 
illustrates  the  correctness  of  the  opinion  of  Juclrre 
Clay,  of  Kentucky.  The  Judge  is  said  to  have 


declared  when  he  read  the  black  law  of  Ohio, 
'k  that  if  a  man  should  return  to  him  one  of  his  fu 
gitive  slaves  under  this  law,  he  should  watch  him, 
while  in  his  house,  for  fear  he  would  rob  him  !" 
The  bail,  who  was  on  the  boat,  a  pious  and  de 
voted  member  of  the  Baptist  Church,  says  that 
Payne  there  told  him  that  he  had  got  from  Lin- 
denberger  SI 00,  and  that  he  had  done  with 
the  suit,  thus  violating  the  old  adage,  "  honor 

among "  etc.     Another  colored    man 

who  was  on  board  the  boat,  said  that  Payne 
mistook  him  for  Williams,  and  advised  him  to 
flee  to  Canada  and  forfeit  his  bail.  Was  not 
Judge  Clay  correct  in  his  opinion  ? 

On  the  appointed  day  the  parties  again  ap 
peared  in  Court,  and  by  their  counsel  prayed 
for  an  adjournment  for  one  mouth,  which  was 
granted. 

The  counsel  for  the  prisoners  then  applied 
to  the  Court  for  permission  to  visit  the  jail,  a 
privilege  they  claimed,  but  one  that  had  been 
denied  them.  The  Sheriff  then  arose  and  de 
nied  that  permission  had  been  refused  them  — 
Messrs.  Bolton,  Welles,  and  John  A.  Foot  then 
declared  that  they  had  severally  applied  for 
permission  to  enter,  which  was  denied  them. 

A  few  nights  after  this,  while  "  Liberty"  the 
turnkey,  was  entering  the  cells,  a  white  prisoner 
seized  him  and  endeavored  to  escape.  In  the 
confusion,  one  of  the  fugitives  escaped,  and  is 
now  a  free  man  in  Canada. 

The  cashiered  officer  of  the  army  felt  it  to  be 
his  duty,  as  well  as  his  interest,  to  help  the 
wretched  Jackson  away.  Ignorant  and  unable 
to  read,  this  miserable  dupe  of  a  designing 
knave,  frightened  into  a  course  of  kidnapping, 
was  obliged  to  flee  to  avoid  the  walls  of  the 
New  York  Penitentiary,  a  punishment  richly 
merited  by  his  employers  and  deceivers. 

Yours,  etc.,        Kxox. 

Copy  of  the  Indictment. 

At  the  term  of  the  Recorder's  Court  of  the 
City  of  Buffalo,  holden  at  the  Court  House  in 
the  city  of  Buffalo,  in  and  for  the  said  city,  on 
the  15th  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-one, 
before  the  Honorable  Horatio  J.  Stow,  Recor 
der  of  the  City  of  Buffalo,  assigned  to  keep  the 
peace  in  the  said  city,  and  also  to  h'ear  and  de 
termine  divers  felonies,  trespasses,  and  other 
misdemeanors  in  the  said  city  perpetrated. 

County  of  Erie,  7 
City  of  Buffalo,  $  ss 

The .  Jurors  for  the  people  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  in  and  for  the  said  city  of  Buffalo, 
in  the  County  of  Erie  aforesaid,  to  wit :  Harry 
Daw,  Cornelius  A.  Waldren,  Nelson  B.  Pal 
mer,  Charles  S.  Pierce,  Samuel  C.  Smith,  Ve- 
lones  Hodge,  John  Prince,  Albert  J.  Stow, 
William  Haws,  Hamilton  Rainey,  Daniel  F. 
Kimball,  Henry  Scun,  John  D.  Benny,  Morris 
O.  Barnes,  Giles  G.  Thomas,  and  George  W. 


238 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Valentine,  then  and  there  being  empanelled, 
sworn,  and  charged  to  inquire  for  the  People 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  for  the  City  of 
Buffalo,  in  the  County  of  Erie,  upon  their  oath 
present,  that  Henry  Jackson,  Yernon  H.  Lin- 
denberger,  and  Hiram  V.  Willson,  late  of  the 
city  aforesaid,  heretofore,  to  wit,  on  the  first 
day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-one,  with 
force  and  arms  at  the  place  in  the  county  afore 
said,  feloniously  and  without  lawful  authority, 
did  inveigle  one  Alexander  Williams,  then  and 
there,  being  with  intent  to  cause  him,  the  said 
Alexander  Williams,  to  be  sent  out  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  against  his  will,  contrary  to  the 
form  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  pro 
vided,  and  against  the  peace  of  the  people  of 
the  State  of  New  York  and  their  dignity. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  farther  present  that  the  said  Hen 
ry  Jackson,  Vernon  H.  Lindenberger  and  Hi 
ram  V.  Willson,  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  same 
day  and  year  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms  at 
the  city  and  in  the  county  aforesaid,  feloniously 
and  without  lawful  authority  did  inveigle  one 
Alexander  Williams,  then  and  there,  being 
"with  intent  to  cause  him,  the  said  Alexander 
Williams,  to  be  held  to  service  against  his  will, 
contrary  to  the  power  of  the  statute  in  such 
cases  made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace 
of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Kew  York  and 
their  dignity. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  farther  present  that  the  said  Hen 
ry  Jackson,  Vernon  H.  Lindenberger  and  Hi 
ram  V.  Willson,  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  same 
day  and  year  aforesaid,  at  the  city  and  in  the 
county  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms,  felonious 
ly,  and  without  lawful  authority,  did  inveigle 
one  Alexander  Williams,  then  and  there,  being 
with  intent  to  cause  him,  the  said  Alexander 
Williams,  to  be  sent  out  of  the  State  of  New 
York  aforesaid,  to  the  State  of  Louisiana,  and 
to  be  there  held  to  service  against  his  will,  con 
trary  to  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such  case 
made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  of 
the  people  of  New  York,  and  their  dignity. 

And  the  jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  further  present  that  the  said  Hen 
ry  Jackson,  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day 
and  year  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms  at  the 
city  and  in  the  county  aforesaid,  feloniously  and 
without  lawful  authority,  and  with  a  view  to 
wheedle,  deceive,  and  inveigle  one  Alexander 
Williams,  then  and  there  being,  and  with  intent, 
the  said  Alexander  Williams  to  be  sent  out  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  to  wit ;  to  the  State  of 
Louisiana,  against  his  will,  to  be  held  to  service 
against  his  will,  then  and  there  did  deceitfully 
pretend  to  the  said  Alexander  Williams  that 
one  Jarvis  F.  Hanks,  a  Portrait  Painter  at  the 
city  of  Cleveland,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  had 
said  to  him,  the  said  Henry  Jackson,  that  he 
wanted  the  said  Alexander  Williams  to  go  to 
the  said  city  of  Cleveland  and  live  with  him, 


the  said  Jarvis  F.  Hanks,  and  learn  to  paint 
portraits,  by  means  whereof,  the  said  Alexan 
der  Williams  was  induced  to  and  did  go  to  the 
said  city  of  Cleveland,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day 
and  year  aforesaid,  whereas  in  truth  and  in  fact, 
the  said  Jarvis  F.  Hanks  did  never  at  any  time 
say  to  the  said  Henry  Jackson,  or  to  any  other 
person,  that  he  wanted,  nor  did  he  want,  tho 
said  Alexander  Williams  to  go  to  the  said  city 
of  Cleveland  and  live  with  him,  the  said  Jarvn 
F.  Hanks,  and  learn  to  paint  portraits,  all 
which  was  then  and  there  well  known  to  the 
said  Alexander  Williams ;  and  so  the  jurora 
aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  say  that 
the  said  Henry  Jackson  feloniously  and  with 
out  lawful  authority,  and  by  the  deceptive 
means  aforesaid,  him  the  said  Alexander  Wil 
liams  did  then  and  there  inveigle  and  induce  to 
go  to  the  said  city  of  Cleveland  with  intent  to 
cause  him,  the  said  Alexander  Williams,  to  be 
sent  out  of  the  State  of  New  York,  to  wit,  to 
the  State  of  Louisiana  aforesaid,  against  his  will, 
and  to  be  held  to  service  against  his  will,  con 
trary  to  the  statute  in  such  case,  made  and  pro 
vided  ;  and  the  jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  further  present  that  the  said  Ver 
non  H.  Lindenberger,  and  Hiram  V.  Willson, 
before  the  offence  and  felony  was  committed  in 
form  aforesaid,  by  the  said  Henry  Jackson,  to- 
wit:  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  August,  in  the 
year  aforesaid,  at  the  city  of  Buffalo,  in  tho 
county  aforesaid,  did  feloniously  and  without 
lawful  authority  incite,  move,  procure,  aid, 
counsel,  hire,  and  command  the  said  Henry 
Jackson,  the  said  offence  and  felony  in  manner, 
deed,  form  aforesaid,  to  do  and  commit,  con 
trary  to  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such  case 
made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  of 
the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  their 
dignity. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  further  present  that  the  said  Henry 
Jackson  aforesaid,  to  wit,  on  the  first  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  aforesaid,  with  force  and 
arms,  at  the  city  of  Buffalo,  in  the  county  of 
Erie  aforesaid,  feloniously  and  without  lawful 
authority,  did  wheedle,  inveigle,  and  deceive 
one  Alexander  Williams,  then  and  there  being, 
with  intent  to  cause  him,  the  said  Alexander 
Williams,  to  be  sent  out  of  the  said  State  of 
New  York  against  his  will;  and  the  Jurors 
aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  further 
present,  that  the  said  Vernon  II.  Lindenburger 
and  Hiram  V.  Willson,  before  the  said  crime 
was  committed  in  form  last  aforesaid,  to- wit,  on 
the  same  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  at  the  city 
of  Buffalo  aforesaid,  did  feloniously  and  ma 
liciously  incite,  move,  procure,  aid,  counsel,  hire, 
and  command  the  said  Henry  Jackson,  the  said 
crime  in  manner  and  form  last  aforesaid,  to  do 
and  commit,  contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute 
in  such  case  made,  and  provided,  and  against 
the  peace  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New 
York  and  their  dignitv. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


239 


aforesaid,  do  further  present  that  the  said  Henry 
Jackson  afterwards,  to  wit,  on  the  same  day 
the  year  last  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms  at 
the  place  last  aforesaid,  feloniously  and  without 
lawful  authority,  did  deceive,  inveigle,  and  in 
duce  the  said  Alexander  Williams,  then  and 
there  being,  to  go  to  the  city  of  Cleveland,  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  with  intent  thereby  to  cause 
him,  the  said  Alexander  Williams,  to  be  held 
to  service  against  his  will. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath 
aforesaid,  do  further  present  that  the  said  Ver- 
non  II.  Lindenberger  and  Hiram  V.  Willson, 
before  the  said  crime  was  committed  in  form 
last  aforesaid,  to-wit,  on  the  same  day  and 
year,  at  the  place  last  aforesaid,  did  feloniously 
and  maliciously  incite,  move,  procure,  aid, 
counsel,  hire,  and  command  the  said  Henry 
Jackson,  the  said  crime  in  manner  and  form 
aforesaid,  to  do  and  commit ;  contrary  to  the 
form  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  pro- 
Tided,  and  against  the  peace  of  the  people  of 
the  State  of  New  York  and  their  dignity. 
(Signed,)  H.  W.  ROGERS, 

District- Attorney. 

Erie  county,    > 
City  of  Buffalo,  jss 

I,  JMichenes  Cadwallader,  Clerk  of  the  Re 
corder's  Court  of  the  City  of  Buffalo,  do  certify 
that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  an  original 
indictment  on  file  in  my  office,  as  Clerk  of  the 
said  Court  —  and  further,  that  I  have  compared 
said  copy  with  said  original,  and  find  it  to  be  a 
correct  transcript  of  the  same  and  of  the  whole 
thereof. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto 
subscribed  my  name,  and  affixed  the 
£Seal.]      seal  of  the  said  Court  the  fifteenth 
day  of  September,  A.  D.  1841. 
(Signed,) 
JU.  CADWALLAI/ER,  Clerk. 

County  of  Erie,  > 
City  of  Buffalo,  J  M 

Henry  W.  Rogers,  District- Attorney  of  said 
County,  being  sworn  says  — fhat  Henry  Jackson, 
Vernon  H.  Liixdenberger,  and  Hiram  V.  Will- 
son  are  now  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  as  this  depo 
nent  is  informed  and  verily  believes  —  and  that 
they  are  the  identical  persons  named  as  defend 
ants  in  an  indictment  of  which  the  within  and 
foregoing  is  a  copy. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  this"! 

15th  day  of  September, 

A. p.  1841. 

(Signed,) 

M.  CADWALLADER, 

Clerk  of  the  Recorder's 
Court  of  the  City  of  Buf 
falo.  , 

Endorsed:  "The  People  v.  Henry  Jackson, 
Vernon  Lindenberger,  and  Hiram  V.  Willson, 
indictment-— inveigling  and  kidnapping.  H. 


(Signed,) 
H.  W.  ROGERS. 


W.    Rogers,    District-Attorney,   (A  copy.} 
Filed  September  15,  1841." 

Copy  of  the  Requisition. 

William  H.  Seward,  Governor  of  the  Stato  of 

New  York:—  v* 

To  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  the  State  of 

Ohio:  — 

It  appears  by  the  annexed  papers  duly  au 
thenticated  according  to  the 
[Seal.]  laws  of  our  State,  that  Henry 

Jackson,  Vernon  H.  Linden 
berger  and  Hiram  V.  Willson 
(Signed,)          stand  charged  in  this  State 
WM.  H.  SEWARD.  with  having  without  lawful 
authority  inveigled  and  kid 
napped  a  person  with  intent 
to  cause  such  person  to  be  sent  out  of  this  State 
and  to  the  State  of  Louisiana,  against  his  will, 
there  to  be  held  to  service  against  his  will,  and 
it  has  been  represented  to  me  that  they  have 
fled  from  the  justice  of  this  State  and  have  taken 
refuge  within  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Now,  therefore,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States 
in  such  case  made  and  provided,  I  do  hereby 
require  that  the  said  Henry  Jackson,  Vernon 
II.  Lindenberger,  and  Hiram  V.  Willson  be 
apprehended  and  delivered  to  George  B. 
Gates  and  Joel  W.  Barton,  who  are  hereby 
duly  authorized  to  receive  them  and  convey 
them  to  the  State  of  New  York,  there  to  be 

dealt  with  according  to  law.  v       - 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  affixed 

my  name  and  the  Privy  Seal  of  the  State,  this 

twenty-fifth  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 

Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-one. 

By  the  Governor...     -  -  *-**v 

(Signed,)         HENRY  UNDERWOOD, 

"  --..v*   Private  Secretary. 

Endorsed :  "  Requisition  of  the  Governor  of 
New  York  for  Jackson,  Lindenberger  and 
Willson."  "  Warrant  issued  to  Sheriff  of 
Cuyahoga,  October  5,  1841."  " 

The  same  paper  furnishes  us  other  refreshing 
reminiscences :  — 

Judge  Willson  a  Candidate  for  Congress  —  What 
he  said  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  —  The  Em 
pire  Hall  Meeting  and  Resolutions  —  His 
Connection  Therewith  —  Why  he  had  the  Res 
olutions  Published. 

READ,   PONDER,  "AND    INWARDLY   DIGEST  !' 

The  " Wacchter  am  Erie"  German  Republi 
can,  replies  to  the  Plain  Dealer's  statement  that 
Judge  WILLSON  was  not  present  when  the  reso 
lutions  read  in  Court  by  Mr.  Spalding  were 
passed,  as  follows :  — 

"  We  will  remind  the  principal  editor  of  the 
Plain  Dealer,  that  he,  Mr.  Gray,  himself,  with 
the  present  U.  States  Collector  Parks,  Colonel 
Mack,  and  Mr.  Schuh  introduced  on  the  4th 
day  of  October,  1852,  to  our  office  Mr.  WILL- 


240 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


SON,  -who  at  that  time  -was  a  Democratic  candi 
date  for  Congress.  Mr.  WILLSON  did,  then  and 
there,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  gentlemen 
aforenamed,  answer  directly  and  -without  am 
biguity  certain  questions,  the  satisfactory  an 
swer  to  which  was  the  condition  made  by  us  for 
our  supporting  Mr.  WILLSON.  These  ques 
tions  referred  to  the  Homestead  Bill,  to  the 
position  of  our  Government  in  regard  to  revo 
lutionary  movements  in  Europe,  and  to  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Mr.  WILLSON  replied 
very  sufficiently  and  entirely  satisfactorily  to 
all  of  these  questions ;  in  regard  to  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law,  he  stated  especially,  this  Law 
was,  in  his  opinion,  unconstitutional,  non-demo 
cratic,  dangerous  in  its  principle,  and  infamous  ; 
it  must  not  be  enforced,  neither  at  present  nor  at 
any  time.  As  a  confirmation  of  this  assertion 
he  promised  to  send  us  certain  resolutions, 
drawn  with  his  assistance,  and  about  an  hour 
later  he  sent  the  printed  reports  of  the  meeting 
held  at  Empire  Hall,  Oct.  11,  1850,  contain 
ing  the  same  resolutions  lately  read  in  Court  by 
Mr.  Spalding.  These  very  resolutions  were 
published  in  our  paper  Oct.  6,  1852,  by  the  ex 
pressed  desire  of  Mr.  WILLSOX,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  defining  his  position.  It  is  very  evi 
dent,  therefore,  that  the  editor  of  the  Plain 
Dealer  has  rather  a  short  recollection ;  probably 
he  has  forgotten  all  his  former  democratic  prin 
ciples  for  the  same  reason." 

THE     UNITED     STATES     FEDERAL '  COURT 

.-"I    :•'»     -..-.APOSTATES!     '..-.-•' 

The  Hon.  Joseph  Cable,  Editor  of  the  Van 
Wert  American,  was  formerly  a  Democratic 
Member  of  Congress  from  Ohio.  Mr.  Cable 
like  a  free,  honest  man,  declined  to  keep  pro- 
slavery  step  with  his  party  at  the  command  and 
lash  of  Southern  masters,  and  spurned  the 
bribes  offered  to  secure  degrading  subserviency. 
His  votes  in  Congress  against  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  the  Texan  Boundary,  and  Ten 
Millions  Bill,  the  Territorial  Law  to  Utah,  etc., 
were  warmly  approved  at  the  time  by  many  of 
the  leading  Democrats  of  Ohio  —  some  of  the 
same  Democratic  politicians  and  place-men  who 
afterwards  joined  in  hunting  him  down  for 
those  very  votes,  and  who  have  become  eager 
"  Government  Pursuers"  of  the  Jeffrey  scent 
and  odor,  under  the  very  Fugitive  Act  they 
denounced  "  as  unconstitutional  and  insulting 
to  Free  States,"  and  "  ought  never  to  be  en 
forced." 

Mr.  CABLE  has  not  forgotten  the  past :  and 
in  the  last  American  he  gives  the  names  of  the 
packed  jurors  who  went  through  the  farce  of 
trying  Bushnell,  a  jury  which  he  pronounces 
"  made  up  by  a  set  of  apostates,  with  the  ex 
ception  of  two  of  whom  we  know  nothing  "  — 
and  he  then  presents  the  following  loathsome 
picture  of  rewarded  apostasy  in  higher  places. 
Kead,  ponder,  and  inwardly  digest.  Says 
Mr.  C.:  — 

Here  the  question  arises  —  who  are  the  men 


who  compose  that  court,  and  what  was  the  price 
of  their  apostasy? 

It  has  been  our  good  or  bad  fortune — as  the 
case  may  be  —  to  have  an  acquaintance  with 
most  of  the  prominent  members  of  that  court : 
Judge  WILLSON,  the  presiding  deity  of  that 
court,  we  became  acquainted  with  some  ten  or 
twelve  years  ago ;  and  meeting  with  him  aboard 
of  a  steamboat  on  the  Ohio  River,  we  received 
a  flattering  encomium  from  him  for  having  voted, 
while  in  Congress,  against  this  Fugitive  Slave 
Act,  and  in  which  vote  he  concurred.  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  he  denounced  that  law 
as  clearly  unconstitutional;  and  that  it  never 
could  be  enforced.  We  reminded  him  that  we 
were  glad  his  name  was  identified  with  the 
proceedings  of  an  INDIGNATION  meeting  at 
Cleveland,  composed  of  all  parties,  a  short  time 
previously.  He  expressed  his  unalterable  de 
termination  to  oppose  the  enforcement  of  that 
unconstitutional  act. 

Since  then  the  Northern  District  of  Ohio  was 
created,  and  the  then  Mr.  Willson,  has  somehow 
become  the  judge  of  that  new  district.  What 
influence  the  appointment  has  had  on  his  mind, 
or  whether  apostasy  was  the  condition  upon 
which  his  appointment  was  confirmed  by  a  fogy 
Senate,  we  leave  others  to  determine. 

Our  intimacy  with  Judge  BELDEN,  now  Dis 
trict-Attorney,  was  still  more  close.  We  have 
known  him  since  he  stood  at  the  case  as  a 
printer.  We  have  labored  for  his  political  pro 
motion: —  To  make  him  Common  Pleas  Judge, 
which  he  filled  with  ability  and  honor  to  him 
self.  We  have  been  his  friend,  personal  and 
political  in  several  other  contests ;  and  for  which, 
up  to  his  apostasy,  we  have  no  regrets.  When 
Gen.  Cass,  Gen.  Taylor,  and  Mr.  Van  Buren 
were  before  the  people  for  President,  Judge 
Belden  voted  for  Mr.  Van  Buren. 

He,  too,  after  we  had  voted  against  the  Tex 
an  Boundary  and  Ten  Millions  Bill  —  against 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  —  against  Territorial 
law  to  Utah,  etc.,  Judge  BELDEN,  in  the  over 
flowing  of  a  then  honest  heart,  wrote  us  a  long 
eulogistic  letter,  admiratory  of  our  course  in  Con 
gress  generally,  and  especially  in  reference  to 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  denouncing  it  as  un 
constitutional  and  insulting  to  the  Free  States 
—  it  ought  never  to  be  enforced,  said  he. 

Marshal  JOHNSON  is  of  like  character  on  the 
act  he  now  degrades  himself  to  enforce.  The 
only  charitable  and  friendly  conclusion  we  are 
able  to  arrive  at  is,  that  these  men,  with  deputy 
Marshal  C.  N.  ALLEN,  who  also  wrote  us  a 
kindly  letter  approving  our  course  on  the  same 
subject — have  thrown  conscience  to  the  dogs  for 
office. 

We  might  go  further  into  the  list  of  the  offi 
cers  of  that  court,  and  they  all  show  a  like  pas- 
siveness  for  emolument. 

Hon.  F.  G.  GREEN,  the  Clerk  (if  he  yet  be 
Clerk),  is  the  only  consistent  man  of  the  lot 
He  is  a  Marylander  by  birth  and  feeling.  He 
was  in  Congress  after  the  passage  of  the  Fugi- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


241 


tive  act,  was  there  in  '54,  and  voted  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  ex 
tension  of  Slavery.  He  is  much  of  a  gentle 
man  and  entitled  to  more  respect  than  apostates 
He  is  consistent  in  error  —  they  forsake  a  righ 
to  do  wrong.  How  widely  do  Judge  Willson 
Judge  Belden,  Marshal  Johnson  and  their  apos 
tate  clan  now  ditfer  with  us  —  once  of  one  senti 
ment  on  the  tyranny  of  Slavedom  !  We,  too 
have  had  alluring  and  sweet-scented  bait  thrown 
to  us  as  well  as  they,  perhaps.  We  stand  where 
we  then  had  deliberately  taken  our  position,  anc 
have  suffered  therefor.  - 

They  have  changed  and  been  benefited, 
not  blest  thereby.    They  have  their  reward,  am 
we  are  at  peace  with  ourself. 

MARSHAL 


JOHNSON  AND 
DAYTON. 

The    National   Democrat 
Leader  as  follows  :  — 


HIS  DEPUTY 


copies    from    the 


"  Marshal  Johnson  visited  Oberlin  and  con 
sulted  with  a  number  of  the  leading  citizens. 
With  smooth  and  honeyed  words  he  sought  to 
allay  the  indignation  of  the  people.  The  con 
duct  of  Dayton  was  disapproved,  and  assur 
ances  were  given  that  farther  trouble  need  not 
be  apprehended.  He  expressed  a  strong  re 
pugnance  to  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  left 
a  favorable  impression  on  the  minds  of  the 
citizens  present." 

And  then  says :  — 

"  This  is  far  from  being  a  correct  account  of 
the  interview  which  the  Marshal  had  with 
some  of  the  Oberlin  people ;  he  assured  them 
that  he  would  not  send  his  Deputy,  Mr.  D., 
another  warrant ;  should  he  get  one,  he  would 
serve  it  himself." 

To  make  this  a  "  correct  account,"  the  Demo 
crat  should  add  that  at  the  interview  alluded 
to  the  Marshal  took  especial  pains  to  have  it 
understood  that  not  only  should  he  come  him 
self,  but  that  he  should  give  such  notice  of  his 
coming,  and  of  the  object  of  his  visit,  as  would 
enable  the  fugitive  to  escape,  intimating  that 
such  a  result  would  be  most  gratifying  to  his 
feelings. 

The  Marshal  also  took  occasion  to  say,  then 
and  there,  that  Deputy  Dayton  was  distasteful 
to  him,  and  that  he  had  exhibited  improper 
readiness  to  engage  in  taking  fugitives  by 
going  to  Painesville,  as  he  had  other  deputies 
whose  duty  it  would  be  to  serve  warrants  in 
Painesville. 

The  Democrat  publishes  the  following  epistle 
in  full-  — 

U.  S.  MARSHAL'S  OFFICE,   ") 
Cleveland,  October  4,  1858.) 

A.  P.  DAYTON,  Esq. : 

SIR,  —  Your  favor  of  the  1st,  is  received 
and  contents  noted.  You  must  not  resign.  I 
am  not  disposed  to  be  driven  by  the  violators  of 
the  laws  and  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
to  discharge  a  deputy  for  doing  his  duty,  nor  i 

31 


do  I  wish  such  a  deputy  to  resign.  You  need 
fear  no  violence.  It  is  all  bravado  —  an 
effort  to  scare  you  into  a  resignation. 

Yours,  M.  JOHNSON, 

U.  S.  Marshal. 

And  adds :  — 

It  will  be  seen  that  that  letter  was  written 
after  the  Marshal  had  visited  Oberlin,  and  we 
believe  the  public  will  honor  the  position  taken 
in  this  case. 

But  the  Democrat  fails  to  state  that  another 
letter  was  written  to  Deputy  Dayton,  before 
the  interview  alluded  to,  which  is  not  published 
—  and  further,  that  Marshal  Johnson  apolo 
gized  for  that  letter  to  the  men  at  Oberlin, 
saying  that  he  wrote  it  in  such  a  manner  that 
while  it  seemed  to  require  Dayton  to  serve  the 
warrant  in  behalf  of  Mr.  McMillan,  it  was  not 
so  intended  by  him ;  and  when  Marshal  John 
son  went  to  Oberlin  to  make  the  arrest  of 
the  indicted,  he  denied  in  the  most  positive 
terms  that  lie  ever  wrote  Dayton  ANY  letter  about 
his  resignation  or  removal.  Did  it  publicly  and 
repeatedly,  and  said  if  Dayton  showed  any 
such  letters,  they  were  forgeries. 

Such  has  been  the  duplicity  and  double 
dealing  of  U.  S.  Marshal  Johnson  with  the 
citizens  of  Oberlin  touching  his  Deputy  Dayton 
and  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act 

Since  reference  has  been  made  to  this 
'Deputy  Dayton,"  justice  demands  that  the 
public  should  know  more  of  him.  The  follow 
ing  lines  so  accurately  and  happily  advert  to 
the  leading  exploits  of  his  official  career,  that 
they  are  accepted  with  acknowledgments  as 
furnishing  the  precise  multum  in  parvo  deside 
rated  here. 

DEAR  LEADER:  —  The  following  melody, 
though  in  the  style  of  Mother  Goose,  may,  nev 
ertheless,  be  relied  upon  as  a  truthful  history  of 
several  remarkable  passages  in  the  life  of  a  dis- 
incjuished  Deputy  U.  S.  Marshal,  by  the  name 
>f  Dayton.  Q. 

OUR  MARSHAL. 
BY  AN  OBERLIN   MECHANIC. 

Who  sought  this  place  when  purse  was  low, 
And  he  had  nowhere  else  to  go, 
And  strove  his  legal  wit  to  show  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who  sought  for  favors  at  our  hand, 
And  tried  to  seem  an  honest  man, 
And  called  himself  Republican  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who  asked  and  got  a  recommend  * 
From  our  P.  M.  his  worthy  friend, 
To  do  what  honest  men  condemned  ? 

Our  MarshaL 

Who  was  the  first  to  shake  with  fright, 
When  out  a  "  little  late  "  one  night, 
To  see  a  figure  robed  in  white  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

*  Marshal  Johnson  says,  "  I  didn't  like  Ms  looks,  bnt  ap- 
ointed  him  because  he  waa  BO  well  recommended  by  Poet- 
master  Munson."  ' 


242 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


Who  was  the  first  to  break  and  run, 
Though  strongly  armed  and  iour  to  one, 
From  Wagner  with  his  lockless  gun  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who  in  his  brave  and  daring  mode, 
Shot  luckless  chipmonks  *  by  the  road,    . 
To  get  inured  to  deeds  of  blood  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who,  bearing  his  revolvers  twain, 
Fled  from  a  boy  but  with  a  cane, 
And  bawled  for  help  with  might  and  main? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who  asked  the  Mayor  for  his  aid, 
To  keep  him  from  the  colored  maids, 
Lest  he  might  sometime  be  waylaid  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Who  fled  from  Painesville  on  the  car, 
Because  he  had  no  taste  for  war, 
Or  more  especially  for  tar  ? 

Our  Marshal. 

Long  live  Old  Buck  in  power  and  might, 
to  punish  wrong  and  guard  the  right, 
And  longer  live  the  Gallant  Knight, 

Our  Marshal. 

When  Liberty  shall  need  a  friend, 
And  threatening  ruin  shall  impend, 
May  Government  to  rescue  send, 

Our  Marshal. 

"**  To  preserve  from  oblivion  "  two,  as  samples 
of  the  multitude  of  "  memorable "  speeches 
drawn  out  in  a  great  number  of  localities  by 
these  "  political  trials,"  we  insert  the  follow 
ing:— 

SPEECH  OF  HON.  JOHN  R.  FRENCH, 

At  a  Public  Meeting  lield  in  Painesville,  to  con 
sider  the  treatment  of  citizens    of   Lorain 
county  by  the  Federal  court. 
JOHN  R.  FRENCH,  Esq. : 

SIR, —  Believing  that  the  circulation  of  your 
speech  before  the  meeting  in  Painesville  to 
consider  the  proceedings  of  the  Federal  Court 
in  Cleveland,  would  aid  to  promote  right  views 
and  feelings  upon  the  subject,  we  respectfully 
suggest  that  it  be  published  with  the  procGed- 
ings  of  the  meeting. 

Yours,  etc.,  A.  MORLEY, 

T.  ROCKWELL, 
WM.  MATTHEWS, 
JOHN  HOUSE, 
URI  SEELEY. 

PAINESVILLE,  April  26,  1859. 
Messrs.  MORLEY,  ROCKWELL,  and  others : 

GENTLEMEN,  —  In  the  remarks  I  made  at 
the  meeting  last  evening  (owing  to  the  late 
hour  when  I  spoke),  I  was  obliged  to  take  but 
a  hurried  glance  at  some  very  important  points 
in  this  great  controversy  between  Liberty  and 
her  ancient  foe ;  but  if  the  printing  can  be  of 
any  service  to  the  Right,  I  will  write  them  out 

*  An  Oberlin  Democrat  says  he  accompanied  the  coura 
geous  Deputy  on  a  trip  to  Wellington  to  prepare  for  the  kid 
napping  of  "  John."  which  was  improved  by  •'  our  Mar 
shal  "  in  shooting  at  chipmonks  on  the  road-side,  that  he 
might  become  accustomed  to  blood. 


as  well  as  I  may,  and  place  the  manuscript  at 
your  disposal. 

Your  friend,        JOHN  R.  FRENCH. 

Mr.  Chairman  and.  Fellow-Citizens  :  — 

I  have  no  words  suitable  for  the  occasion. 
Twenty  of  our  fellow-citizens  —  noble,  excel 
lent,  Christian  men  —  have  been  torn  from 
their  families,  and,  guiltless  of  all  crime,  are  in 
carcerated  in  a  prison.  To  express  the  sympa 
thy  you  all  feel  for  these  men,  and  their  wives 
and  their  little  ones,  one  needs  such  kind 
words,  such  pitying  words  as  only  the  angels 
have  learned.  And  if  I  would  give  voice  to 
the  indignation  that  every  true  heart  must  feel 
when  told  that  this  GREAT  WRONG  is  commit 
ted  in  the  sacred  name  of  "  Law,"  I  should 
need  words  as  bitter  as  the  dregs  of  a  strong 
man's  wrath.  Ah,  and  who  can  command  the 
trumpet  tones  that  may  arouse  this  slumbering 
nation  to  a  sense  of  its  danger. 

Men  in  prison  in  Ohio,  for  violating  the  pro 
visions  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act!  Has  it, 
indeed,  come  to  this,  that  in  Ohio  it  is  a  crime 
to  sympathize  with  the  wronged  and  suffering  ? 
Are  there  men  and  courts  still  found  in  this 
State  who  believe  in  the  constitutionality,  the 
binding  force  of  this  statute,  whose  counterpart 
may  not  be  found  outside  the  statute-books  of 
hell.  The  clause  of  the  Constitution  upon 
which  they  pretend  to  found  this  law,  talks 
about  "owing  service."  Certainly  these  can 
not  be  slaves.  A  slave  cannot  owe  service.  A 
slave,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  property ;  and  property  cannot 
make  contracts,  assume  responsibilities,  or  owe 
service. 

Mr.  Chairman,  can  you  talk  of  your  horse 
owing  service,  or  the  table  upon  which  you  eat 
your  dinner  ?  The  very  first  act  of  slavery,  as 
it  seizes  its  victim,  its  crowning,  damning  crime, 
is  its  total  obliteration  of  the  slave's  personal 
ity,  the  wiping  out  of  every  vestige  of  his  man- 
hood,  the  herding  of  immortal  beings  with  the 
beasts  of  the  stall,  the  consigning  of  souls  to 
the  shambles.  The  slave  is  but  merchandise, 
and  when  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  talked 
about  persons  who  "  owed  service,"  they  could 
not  have  meant  slaves,  or  horses,  or  household 
furniture. 

But  admitting,  sir,  the  Fugitive  Law  construc 
tion  of  the  Constitution  —  in  spite  of  our  com 
mon  sense  acknowledge  that  property  may  not 
"  owe  service  " —  and  still  you  have  not  saved 
the  constitutionality  of  this  Law.  This  is  an 
enactment  of  Congress,  which  has  no  right  to 
interfere  in  the  premises,  for  if  there  was  a  com 
pact  as  claimed,  it  was  a  compact  between  sov 
ereign  States,  and  whatever  legislation  may 
be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  agreement,  must 
come  from  the'  States.  No  where  in  the  Con 
stitution  is  this  power  delegated  to  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  and  all  powers  and  rights 
not  expressly  delegated  were  reserved  by  the 
States. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


243 


But  there  is  other  ground  upon  which  we  ol 
Oaio,  who  deny  the  binding  force  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Act,  may  stand.  If  there  was  a  contract 
to  restore  Fugitive  Slaves,  it  was  a  contract  be 
tween  the  then  thirteen  States.  Ohio  and 
Kentucky  were  not  there.  They  were  not  par 
ties  to  the  trade.  And  Kentucky  cannot  ask  us 
to  fulfil  any  contract  which  may  have  been 
made  between  Massachusetts  and  Caroli 
na. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  slavery  was  looked  upon  by  all  parties  as  a 
temporary  all  air,  soon  to  pass  away.  With 
this  then  universal  sentiment,  there  could  have 
been  no  legislation  providing  for  future  slavery 
in  then  unoccupied  territories. 

But  the  unshaken  rock  upon  which  we  may 
all  plant  ourselves  is  this :  The  Fugitive  Act 
tramples  upon  eternal  and  universally  acknowl 
edged  RIGHT,  and  whatever  statute  violates 
RIGHT  cannot  be  law,  and  so  reads  every  ac 
knowledged  writer  of  the  profession.  The  very 
office  of  Law  is  to  protect  Right,  not  to  tram 
ple  it  in  the  mire  of  the  street. 

Sympathizing  as  1  do,  Mr.  Chairman,  with 
my  entire  heart  with  our  friends  in  prison,  and 
hating  the  doings  of  the  Federal  Court  now  in 
session  at  Cleveland,  with  as  intense  and  holy 
a  hatred  as  burns  in  any  man's  bosom,  still  I 
must  confess  that  I  am  glad  of  this  development 
of  the  spirit  and  determination  of  that  Court. — 
It  will  turn  the  attention  of  the  intelligent  citi 
zens  of  Ohio  to  the  encroachments  of  the  Fed 
eral  Judiciary  upon  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States  and  the  rights  of  the  People.  Encroach 
ments  that  have  been  accumulating  stealthily, 
but  uninterruptedly,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  nation,  until  this  department  of  the  gov 
ernment  threatens  to  assume  to  itself  all  power. 
Gentlemen  may  care  nothing  for  the  friendless 
negro,  or  for  the  "  Oberlin  Abolitionists,"  but 
do  they  care  nothing  for  their  own  rights,  or  the 
sovereignty  of  their  State  ?  We  have  twenty 
millions  of  bank  capital  in  Ohio  —  there  is  a 
dispute  as  to  the  just  manner  of  its  taxation. 
Certainly  this  is  a  question  exclusively  belong 
ing  to  Ohio,  to  Ohio  courts,  and  Ohio  legisla 
tion,  and  Ohio  citizens.  But  the  Federal  court 
steps  in,  and  says  this  matter  of  levying  taxes 
in  Ohio,  is  a  question  for  her  disposal,  and 
laughs  your  State  courts  to  scorn.  Two  years 
ago  the  Ohio  Legislature  saw  fit  to  declare  cer 
tain  Canal  Contracts  fraudulent,  and  therefore 
void.  The  highest  court  of  the  State  passed 
upon  the  whole  matter,  and  found  the  action  of 
the  Legislature  legal  and  proper.  That  parties 
concerned  might  receive  no  harm,  by  special 
act  of  the  Legislature  they  were  allowed  to 
come  into  our  Courts  and  prosecute  the  State. 
Now,  what  power  outside  of  Ohio  had  a  right 
tt>  interfere  ?  But  this  very  winter  past,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  sent 
its  mandate  to  our  Supreme  Court  with  a  writ 
of  error,  requiring  a  copy  of  the  canal  contract 
proceedings,  involving  that  whole  subject  which 


had  just  gone  through  the  departments  of  our 
Government,  and  been  finally  adjudicated  in 
the  State  court  of  the  last  resort,  in  the  Clark 
county  rescue  case  a  Sheriff  of  Ohio,  in  the 
proper  discharge  of  his  legal  duty,  was  shot  and 
beaten  by  a  posse  of  Deputy  U.  S.  Marshals 
until  he  was  nearly  dead,  and  when  these  men 
had  been  arrested,  indicted  for  attempting  to 
kill,  and  were  in  jail  awaiting  their  trial,  the 
Federal  court  steps  in  with  its  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  and  sets  the  men  at  liberty.  Now,  men 
of  Ohio,  how  do  you  like  this  trampling  upon 
your  State  Rights  and  Sovereignty  ?  One 
might  think  we  were  no  longer  an  independent 
State,  but  a  sort  of  colonial  dependence  upon 
the  Federal  (jovernment. 

In  the  midst  of  these  accumulating  outrages 
upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  State,  it  is  not 
strange  that  men  are  forgetting  the  true  nature 
of  our  General  Government.  They  forget  that 
that  Government  is  Federal,  in  contradistinc 
tion  from  National.  That  it  sprang  from  the 
States,  and  not  from  the  people.  That  it  is  a  con 
federation  of  independent  and  sovereign  States, 
for  few  and  special  purposes,  and  those  purpo 
ses  clearly  defined  and  carefully  set  forth  in 
the  written  compact.  They  confederated,  as 
they  said,  "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tran 
quillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence,  pro 
mote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless 
ings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 
These  were  their  objects,  and  the  power  to  se 
cure  those  granted  to  the  Federal  Government 
was  limited  and  well  defined.  But  the  Federal 
Judiciary  has  been  gathering  to  itself  the  power 
and  rights  of  every  other  branch  of  both  Fed 
eral  and  State  Governments,  until  now,  like 
Death  on  the  pale  horse,  in  its  uncurbed  haugh 
tiness,  it  is  galloping  through  every  co-ordinate 
department,  trampling  all  rights  and  sovereign 
ties  beneath  its  hoofs,  while  hell  and  destruction 
follow  in  its  train.  But  there  is  an  uprising  of 
the  people,  there  is  a  noble  Republican  party 
gathering  in  the  free  States,  which  will  soon 
seize  this  horse  by  his  bridle,  and  throw  him 
upon  his  haunches. 

Mr.  Chairman,  when  we  call  in  question  the 
conduct  of  the  President,  or  of  Congress,  or  of 
the  Federal  Judiciary,  ofttimes  we  are  charged 
with  talking  "  against  the  Union."  But,  sir,  it 
should  never  be  forgotten  that  these  are  not 
"  the  Union."  The  thirty-three  independent 
STATES  are  the  Union  —  and  whoever,  and 
whatever,  denies  the  rights  or  tramples  upon 
the  sovereignty  of  these,  he  it  is  who  is  an  en 
emy  to  the  Union. 

But,  fellow  citizens,  the  Republican  party  is 
not  yet  for  two  years  in  the  possession  of  the 
Federal  Government ;  and  do  you  ask  me 
where  is  our  immediate  and  present  escape  from 
the  oppressions  of  this  Federal  Judiciary  ?  I 
answer  that  our  hope  is  the  Supreme  Court  of 
our  State.  And  I  believe  we  have  sure  pro 
tection  here.  Thank  Heaven,  that  Court  is  a 


244 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


REPUBLICAN  COURT  —  every  man  of  them. 
Last  January  the  last  of  the  doughfaces  was 
made  to  walk  the  plank.  Let  us  look,  then, 
with  all  confidence  to  this  Court,  and  the  more 
so,  as  we  have  a  man  at  the  head  of  the  exec 
utive  department  of  the  State,  who  has  the 
heart  and  nerve  to  promptly  execute  its  com 
mands. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  fellow-citizens,  when  the 
State  of  Ohio,  through  the  calm  decision  of  her 
highest  Court,  shall  take  her  place  by  the  side 
of  the  gallant  young  State  of  Wisconsin,  in 
repudiation  of  this  cruel  and  wicked  enact 
ment,  a  proud  day  will  have  been  reached  in 
the  progress  of  American  civil  liberty.  And 
an  example  so  potential  will  have  been  set,  that 
within  a  twelvemonth  it  will  have  been  followed 
by  every  free  State  of  the  Union.  -  =•••-,.- 

Fellow-Citizens,  we  have  another  hope  —  like 
the  Christian's  "sure  and  steadfast" — the  assur 
ance  of  the  early  dissolution  of  that  political 
body  of  men  in  our  country,  known  as  the 
"  Democratic  Party."  Democrats,  and  yet  aid 
ing  in  all  these  attempts  to  consolidate  all  power 
in  the  hands  of  a  grand  central  government. 
Democrats —  and  yet  approving  of  all  these  out 
rages  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  State. 
Democrats  —  and  yet  finding  it  their  highest 
ambition  to  go  yelping,  with  tongue  out  and 
nose  to  the  ground,  upon  the  track  of  some  flee 
ing  fugitive.  Why,  sir,  every  man  engaged  in 
this  Cleveland  conspiracy,  from  the  Judge  on  the 
bench  down  to  the  meanest  (if  there  may  be 
shades  of  meanness  where  all  is  superlatively 
base)  pimp  of  the  half  hundred  who  were  yes 
terday  sworn  in  as  special  deputies,  all,  all  are 
Democrats,  and  "  National  Democrats,"  at  that. 
I  do  not  learn,  sir,  that  there  has  been  so  great 
a  lie  in  the  world  since  Cain  denied  all  knowl 
edge  of  his  murdered  brother,  as  this  Demo 
cratic  party.  But  it  has  got  to  die  the  death. 
The  indignant  scorn  of  the  people  has  already  dug 
its  grave,  a  thousand  fathom  deep  ;  so  deep,  sir, 
that  we  need  have  no  fear  that  the  pestiferous 
exhalations  of  its  putrefaction  may  pollute  God's 
free  air.  Let  the  tidings  of  its  speedy  death, 
then,  go  forth.  Proclaim  it  to  the  nations  of 
the  old  world,  that  the  tyrants  and  crowned 
heads,  who  have  so  long  made  a  jest  of  Ameri 
can  hypocrisy,  may  no  longer  hold  us  in  deris 
ion.  Let  the  news  reverberate  through  the 
arches  of  heaven,  that  a  new  joy  may  be  added 
to  the  rejoicings  of  that  noble  company  of  de 
fenders  of  freedom,  who  have  finished  their  la 
bors  on  earth,  and  entered  upon  their  reward. 
Aye,  sir,  let  it  bellow  along  through  all  the  deep 
gorges  of  hell,  where  tyrants  and  slave-catchers 
most  do  congregate,  for  nowhere  else  may  be 
found  a  larger  company  interested  in  the 
news. 

Tom  Moore  somewhere  tells  of  a  vision  in 
which  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  Liberty  passin^ 
among  the  nations  in  the  form  of  a  lighted  torch. 
He  tells  of  the  "  expectant  nations  "  anxiously 
awaiting  its  coming :  — 


"  And  each  as  she  received  the  flame 

Lighted  her  altar  with  its  ray, 
Then,  smiling  to  the  next  who  came, 
Speeded  it  on  its  sparkling  way." 

So  let  these  Meetings  of  the  People  be  held, 
from  town  to  town,  until  the  old  fires  of  Liberty 
are  lighted  in  every  breast.  The  people  of 
Ohio  must  see  to  it  that  at  their  next  election 
they  return  a  Legislature  which  will  pass  a  Per 
sonal  Liberty  Bill  that  shall  put  an  end  to  slave- 
catching  on  Ohio  soil,  and  disfranchise  and  out 
law  any  citizen  who  shall  aid  in  enforcing  with 
in  our  limits  the  hated  Fugitive  Act. 

But  men  tell  us  that  we  are  contending  against, 
the  laws  of  our  country  ;  and  the  men  engaged 
in  enforcing  the  Fugitive  Act  plead,  in  justifi 
cation  of  their  conduct,  that  it  is  a  "  Law"  So 
when  the  same  class  of  men  nailed  Jesus  to  the 
cross  between  two  thieves,  they  justified  them 
selves  by  the  same  old  plea,  "  WE  HAVE  A 
LAW,  and  by  that  Law  he  ought  to  die ;  his 
blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children."  But  those 
crucifiersof  the  Saviour  were  none  the  less  guilty, 
and  their  pretended  regard  for  the  sanctity  of 
law  was  loathsome  hypocrisy  and  horrible  im 
piety.  These  are  the  men,  these  wrho  roll  up 
their  eyes  in  such  mock  astonishment  and  talk 
so  flippantly  about  the  duty  of  obeying  the 
"  Law,"  whenever  the  Fugitive  Act  is  called  in 
question,  whom  Whittier  has  gibbeted  in  his 
immortal  verse  where  he  asks  :  — 

Who  knows  not  well  these  cankers  of  the  North, 
These  modern  Esaus,  bartering  rights  for  broth? 
Taxing  our  justice  with  their  double  claim, 
As  fools  for  pity,  and  as  knaves  for  blame ; 
Who,  urged  by  party,  sect,  or  trade,  within 
The  fell  embrace  of  Slavery's  sphere  of  sin, 
Part  at  the  outset  with  their  moral  sense, 
The  watchful  angel  set  for  Truth's  defence; 
Confound  all  contrasts,  good  and  ill;  reverse 
The  poles  of  life,  its  blessing  and  its  curse; 
And  lose  thenceforth  from  their  perverted  sight 
The  eternal  difference  'twixt  the  wrong  and  right; 
To  them  the  Law  is  but  the  iron  span 
That  girds  the  ankles  of  imbruted  man ; 
To  them  the  Gospel  has  no  higher  aim 
Than  simple  sanction  of  the  master's  claim, 
Dragged  in  the  slime  of  Slavery's  loathsome  trail, 
Like'Chalier's  Bible  at  his  ass's  tail ! 

Such  are  the  men  who,  with  instinctive  dread, 
Whenever  Freedom  lifts  her  drooping  head, 
Make  prophet  tripods  of  the  office  stools, 
And  scare  the  nurseries  and  the  village  schools 
With  dire  presage  of  ruin  grim  and  great, 
A  broken  Union  and  a  foundered  State ! 
Such  are  the  patriots,  self-bound  to  the  stake 
Of  office,  martyrs  for  their  country's  sake, 
Who  fill  themselves  the  hungry  jaws  of  Fate, 
And  by  their  loss  of  manhood  save  the  State : 
In  the  wide  Gulf  themselves  like  Curtius  throw, 
And  test  the  virtues  of  cohesive  dough; 
As  tropic  monkeys,  linking  heads  and  tails,         • 
Bridge  o'er  some* torrent  of  Ecuador's  vales! 

"SONS  OF  LIBERTY!" — REMARKS   OF    MR. 

GIDDIXGS. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  people  in  Jefferson  on 
the  7th,  favorable  to  immediate  and  energetic 
action  in  reference  to  the  trials  pending  before 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTONi  RESCUE. 


245 


the  U.  S.  District  Court  of  Northern  Ohio,  for 
offences  under  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  the  Hon. 
JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS  introduced  a  constitution 
for  the  Order  of  the  "Sons  of  Liberty "  re 
vived,  of  which  order  he  gave  the  following 
historical  sketch :  — 

It  is  important  in  times  like  the  present, 
that  we  should  look  to  precedents,  to  the  action 
of  our  Revolutionary  ancestors,  men  immortal 
ized  in  history,  their  conduct  will  furnish  safe 
rules  for  us  to  follow  under  like  circumstances. 
They  passed  through  scenes  like  these  with 
which  we  are  now  surrounded,  similar  in  prin 
ciple,  but  differing  widely  in  degree.  I  refer 
to  the  "  Stamp  Act,"  when  an  attempt  was 
made  to  tax  the  colonists  by  compelling  the 
people  to  buy  stamped  paper  of  the  govern 
ment.  It  was  an  encroachment  upon  their  rights 
of  property ;  but  bore  no  comparison  to  the  out 
rage  upon  liberty  inflicted  by  this  enactment ; 
yet  it  was  an  encroachment  upon  their  rights, 
an  attempt  to  tax  them  without  permitting  them 
to  be  represented  in  Parliament.  The  Fugitive 
Law  taxes  us  for  purposes  which  we  hold  in 
abhorrence,  in  utter  detestation.  The  compel 
ling  people  of  Ashtabula  county  to  pay  the  ex 
penses  of  seizing  and  carrying  slaves  from  Ohio 
to  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  is  a  thousand 
times  more  revolting,  than  to  pay  the  same 
amount  to  support  a  government  in  Germany. 
But  this  tax  to  carry  back  slaves  is  nothing 
compared  to  that  provision  which  shocks  our 
sensibilities  at  seeing  a  fellow  man  robbed  of 
his  liberty,  ourselves  compelled  to  aid  in  the 
perpetration  of  the  crime,  made  to  rivet  the 
iron  upon  his  limbs,  and  hand  him  over  to  his 
tormentors,  and  compel  him  to  drag  out  a  mis 
erable  existence,  a  thousand  times  more  hor 
rible  than  death  itself. 

But  our  fathers  would  not  submit  to  the 
Stamp  Act ;  shall  we  submit  to  the  despotism 
of  this  slave  act?  We  are  greatly  embarrassed 
in  opposing  the  obnoxious  law.  So  were  they. 
There  is  a  strong  feeling,  a  deep  hostility  to 
"this  act  A  gentleman  from  Portage  county 
the  other  day,  told  me  there  were  two  thou 
sand  men  ready  to  march,  or  do  any  thing  else 
to  relieve  the  prisoners  at  Cleveland,  and  put 
down  this  insult  to  our  moral  sensibilities  ;  and 
such  is  the  case  here,  and  in  all  the  counties  of 
the  Reserve.  The  popular  heart  swells  with 
indignation,  each  individual  feels  and  expresses 
it;  but  this  feeling  avails  little  until  concen 
trated,  united,  and  guided  in  some  well-de 
fined  channel  of  operation. 

Such  was  the  case  in  New  England  in  1765. 
Our  fathers  were  excited  and  indignant.  They 
felt  their  rights  were  outraged.  The  "  Stamp 
Act"  had  passed.  .Tared  Ingersol  of  New  Ha 
ven,  happened  at  that  time  to  be  in  London. 
He  sought  and  obtained  the  appointment  of 
stamp  master.  He  landed  at  Boston  on  his  re 
turn  and  bore  himself  as  became  a  supercilious 
office  holder.  Soon  as  he  had  reached  New 
Haven,  a  town  meeting  was  called,  as  has  been 


done  here  this  evening.  They  passed  resolu 
tions  requesting  him  to  resign.  Norwich,  New 
London,  and  Wethersfield  did  the  same;  he 
refused.  He  probably  felt  as  Judge  Willson, 
District- Attorney  Belden,  and  Marshal  John 
son  now  feel,  that  the  Government  is  on  their 
side,  and  they  hold  the  people  in  contempt.  So 
said  Ingersol.  Our  fathers  saw  the  necessity 
of  union,  of  concentrating  the  public  indigna 
tion,  the  same  as  we  feel  it  now. 

To  effect  that  object,  Dagget  and  Thurman 
and  other  parties  conceived  and  established  the 
order  called  "  The  Sons  of  Liberty."  It  was 
composed  of  ardent  Whigs ;  they  had  no  tories 
among  them.  Each  knew  those  who  belonged 
to  the  order.  They  consulted  together  and 
acted  together.  Comparatively  few  were  will 
ing  to  unite  and  thereby  incur  danger  of  trea 
son  under  British  law.  Thank  God,  we  have 
no  such  fears.  But  a  goodly  number  united, 
and  acted. 

Ingersol  started  from  New  Haven  to  go  to 
Hartford  at  the  convening  of  the  Legislature. 
As  he  drew  near  to  Westfield,  he  met  four  men 
riding  two  abreast,  each  holding  a  staff  newly  cut 
from  the  forest,  peeled,  and  looking  white.  It  was 
one  of  the  insignia  of  the  order,  which  Ingersol 
did  not  understand.  Soon  after  he  met  sixteen 
others,  riding  two  abreast,  each  with  his  peeled 
staff.  They  opened  to  the  right  and  left,  and 
Ingersol  passed  on  his  way.  Soon  after  he  met 
five  hundred,  preceded  by  three  trumpeters  and 
two  officers  in  military  dress.  They  opened 
right  and  left,  Ingersol  passed  on  to  the  centre, 
when  they  wheeled  their  horses  and  rode  to  the 
village  with  Ingersol  in  their  midst.  Then  they 
halted,  and  ordered  him  to  dismount,  "  The 
Sons  of  Liberty "  also  dismounting,  gathered 
around  him,  and  the  leader  informed  him  that 
he  must  then  and  there  resign  his  office.  "  I  will 
wait  the  orders  of  Government,"  said  Ingersol. 
To  which  the  leader  responded  in  language 
worthy  a  "  Son  of  Liberty,"  "  Here  is  the  Gov 
ernment  !  "  The  office-holder  was  astounded. 
He  supposed  that  a  feeble  old  man  who  sat  on 
the  throne  at  Westminster  with  a  bauble  on 
his  head  and  a  sceptre  of  less  potency  than 
a  peeled  cane  in  his  hand,  constituted  the 
government.  Such,  too,  is  the  view  of  office 
holders  at  this  day.  They  believe  that  James 
Buchanan  is  the  Government!  They  think, 
at  least,  that  he  and  his  cabinet  and  the  Su 
preme  Court  and  Congress,  constitute  the  Gov 
ernment.  Poor  "mistaken  souls."  They  are 
all  our  servants ;  I  have  often  told  them,  in  the 
language  of  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  "  Here  is  the 
Government !  "  that  the  People  are  the  deposi 
taries  of  power  !  Here  resides  the  sovereignty 
of  the  nation.  Each  individual  constitutes  a 
component  part  of  the  government.  I  would 
that  freemen  should  understand  their  dignity 
and  power.  The  government  is  in  our  kandxt 
and  we  are  not  in  the  hands  of  the  government. 
Those  formers  of  Wethersfield  had  thought 
of  this  matter.  They  were  conscious  of  their 


246 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


dignity;  and  Ingersol  then  saw  their  powers. 
"  If  I  refuse,  -what  will  follow  ?  "  said  he. 
"  YOUR  FATE  ! "  said  the  leader  of  the  pa 
triots.  These  two  monosyllables  reached  his 
heart.  It  was  the  determined  language  of  the 
patriots ;  these  words  should  reach  the  heart  of 
Buchanan  and  every  servile  office-holder,  who 
attempts  to  enforce  this  fugitive  law.  I  would 
send  these  words  thrilling  through  the  heart  of 
every  slave-catcher,  commissioned  by  James 
Buchanan,  or  acting  upon  the  impulse  of  the 
Prince  of  Slaveholders.  I  would  say  to  them, 
If  you  attempt  to  enslave  a  man  here  on  this 
Western  Reserve,  "  your  fate  "  will  follow.  As 
I  said  in  Congress,  I  say  to-night,  if  the  slave- 
catcher  pollutes  my  threshold  with  his  footsteps, 
I  will  strike  him  down ;  be  he  slave-holder  or 
Deputy-Marshal,  Ms  fate  shall  follow  !  These 
two  words  will  constitute  one  of  the  appropri 
ate  maxims  for  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty,"  whom 
I  propose  to  organize  to-night. 

When  Ingersol  heard  them,  a  new  world 
seemed  to  open  up  to  his  frightened  imagina 
tion.  "  The  cause,"  said  he,  "  is  not  worth  dy 
ing  for,"  —  language  which  many  slave-catch 
ing  dough-faces  and  Deputy-Marshals  of  our 
State  would  utter  if  the  people,  or  one  tenth 
part  of  the  people,  would  firmly  and  kindly 
whisper,  "  your  fate  "  in  their  cars.  "  I  resign," 
said  Ingersol.  "  Swear  to  it,"  said  the  leader. 
Ingersol  remonstrated.  Then,  said  the  leader, 
shout  "  Liberty  and  Property"  three  times  ;  and 
Ingersol  opened  his  profane  lips,  and,  for  the 
first  time  in  his  life,  shouted  "  Liberty  and  Prop 
erty,"  "Liberty  and  Property,"  "  LIBERTY  AND 
PROPERTY  !  "  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
the  mother  government  had  not  then  so  perse 
cuted  the  colonists  as  to  rob  any  of  their  lives. 
But  five  years  afterwards,  when  the  people  in 
King  street,  Boston,  were  fired  upon  by  the 
King's  troops,  and  five  of  them  killed,  their 
motto  was  then  amended  by  adding  to  it  the 
word  "life,"  so  that,  from  1770,  » life,  liberty, 
and  property  "  became  their  motto,  and  will,  I 
trust,  be  ours  in  coming  time. 

But  Ingersoi  went  to  Hartford  in  company 
•with  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty,"  and  there  an 
nounced  his  resignation  to  the  proper  authori 
ties,  and  retired  to  private  life.  The  Order 
rapidly  spread  throughout  New  England.  Pa 
triots  in  every  town, "village,  hamlet,  and  school 
district  united  with  it.  They  had  no  tories  in 
their  ranks  ;  public  sentiment  was  guided  in  its 
proper  channels.  Its  influence  constrained  the 
office-holders  to  send  back  to  England  the 
stamped  paper  forwarded  to  them,  and  to  resign 
their  offices.  The  King  and  Parliament  opened 
their  eyes  to  the  great  truth,  that  the  people  con 
stituted  a  power  superior  to  themselves,  and  they 
repealed  the  Stamp  Act.  Gentlemen,  let  the 
true  "  Sons  of  Liberty  "  in  Ashtabula  County 
manifest  the  same  firmness  exhibited  at  Weth- 
ersfield  in  17G5,  and  James  Buchanan  and  his 
satraps  would  never  be  seen  chasing  slaves  in 
Ohio,  nor  would  they  persecute  our  citizens. 


The  Order  was  kept  up  ;  and  when  the  odi 
ous  tax  on  tea  was  forced  upon  the  pioneers, 
and  the  two  ships  loaded  with  it  lay  in  Boston 
harbor  in  1773,  they  again  sat  in  council,  and 
determined  on  their  course.  At  nightfall,  in 
disguise,  they  went  on  board,  and,  using  the  At 
lantic  ocean  for  a  teapot,  they  got  up  the  cele 
brated  tea-party  to  which  our  friend  (Mr.  Si- 
monds)  alluded.  This  was  the  second  and  last 
exercise  of  force  by  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty." 
Their  great  usefulness  consisted  in  giving  direc 
tion  to  the  popular  mind  which  guided  the  pro 
vincial  legislatures,  and  found  an  equally  em 
phatic  expression  in  Congress. 

John  Adams  informs  us  that  a  deputation 
from  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty"  in  Pennsylvania 
met  him  in  New  Jersey  in  1776,  when  on  his 
way  to  Congress.  Their  principal  object  was 
to  induce  him  so  to  arrange  matters  as  to  have 
Mr.  Jefferson  write  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  —  a  measure  which  Mr.  Adams  had 
brought  forward  and  advocated.  They  thought 
by  so  doing  they  would  secure  the  inilaence  of 
Virginia  and  other  Southern  States.  I  now 
think  the  proposition  wrong ;  that  Mr.  Adams 
should  have  pursued  his  own  course  and  receiv 
ed  the  glory  which  he  thus  surrendered  to 
another.  But  he  being  one  of  the  Order,  sub 
mitted  to  their  advice,  and  Jefferson  feeling  the 
import  of  this  phrase,  adopted  the  natural 
rights  of  man  to  life,  liberty,  and  property,  as 
the  basis  of  the  new  Government.  lie,  how 
ever,  changed  the  word  "property,"  to  that  of 
"  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  as  a  better  mode  of 
expression. 

But  so  much  had  the  people  become  attached 
to  this  maxim  that  they  adopted  it  into  the 
Constitution,  which  provides  that  "  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  with 
out  due  process  of  law."  This  declaration,  in 
the  words  used  by  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty "  in 
1770,  and  incorporated  into  the  Constitution,  I 
suggest  as  the  proper  basis  of  the  Order  which 
I  now  propose  to  revive.  I  hope  that  our 
friends  m  other  counties  and  towns  may  unite 
in  reviving  this  organization,  and  concentrating 
the  popular  mind  upon  the  importance  of  main 
taining  the  right  of  every  human  being  to  life, 
liberty,  and  property,  until  slave-catchers  and 
slave-catching  office-holders  shall  be  driven  from 
the  Reserve,  from  the  State,  from  the  Union, 
FROM  THE  WORLD. 

Mr.  G.  then  presented  the  Constitution,  etc. 

"  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE    SONS   OF  LIBERTY." 

WHEREAS,  The  authority  of  Britain  over  her 
American  Provinces  was  first  set  at  defiance  by 
an  association  of  patriots  called  "  The  SONS  OF 
LIBERTY,"  who  by  their  personal  efforts  con 
centrated  the  influence  and  gave  direction  to 
the  popular  voice,  which  is  always  powerful 
when  guided  by  discretion  and  judgment  : 
And  whereas,  the  party  that  now  controls  the 
administration  of  the  Federal  Government  has 
waged  a  cruel  war  against  human  nature,  es- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


247 


tablishing  an  execrable  commerce  in  the  souls 
and  bodies  of  men,  a  commerce  so  cruel  that 
its  victims  often  prefer  death  by  their  own 
hands  rather  than  the  degradation,  the  horrors 
to  which  it  consigns  them:  employing  the 
army  and  navy  to  butcher  defenceless  women 
and  children  on  account  of  their  love  of  liberty ; 
enacting  a  fugitive  law  so  barbarous  tkat  the 
tender  mother  is  driven  to  the  terrible  alterna 
tive  of  slaying  her  own  children  rather  than 
see  them  subjected  to  its  cruelties ;  overruling 
the  laws  and  trampling  upon  the  rights  of  our 
State  ;  protecting  felons  indicted  in  our  courts ; 
extending  impunity  to  murderers  who  shed  the 
blood  of  their  fellow  men  upon  our  soil ;  ar 
resting,  imprisoning,  and  prosecuting  our  citi 
zens  for  the  exercise  of  virtues  which  con 
stitute  the  true  glory  of  our  revolutionary  an 
cestors  : 

Now,  therefore,  in  order  to  reform  the  adminis 
tration  of  our  Government ;  to  direct  its  ener 
gies  to  the  protection,  instead  of  the  destruction 
of  human  rights  ;  to  put  an  end  to  this  pirati 
cal  war,  we  hereby  revive  the  ancient  order  of 
"  THE  SONS  OF  LIBERTY,"  recognizing  each 
other  and  those  who  sjiall  hereafter  sign  this 
Constitution  by  that  name  ;  declaring  our  pres 
ent  purpose  and  ulterior  design  to  inculcate 
and  maintain  the  duty  of  human  governments  to 
protect  human  rights ;  that  the  violation  of  those 
rights  by  individuals,  by  officers,  or  by  men  act 
ing  as  a  Government,  constitutes  CRIME  : 

Appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the 
world  for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  we  de 
clare  that  "  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life, 
liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law" 

WHEN  WE  HAVE  POWER  TO  PREVENT  IT. 

£The  foregoing  Constitution  was  then  sub 
scribed  by  nearly  one  hundred  gentlemen,  em 
bracing  the  names  of  some  of  the  most  promi 
nent  and  respectable  citizens  in  the  communi 
ty.]  —  Ashtabula  Sentinel. 

OF     THE    COUNTLESS    "MEETINGS    held   to 

consider  the  treatment  of  the  Lorain  citizens," 
with  their  stirring  speeches  and  plain-spoken 
resolutions,  we  have  room  to  notice  only  one ; 
and  of  that  we  publish  the  proceedings  in  full, 
as  reported  in  the  daily  papers. 

The  call,  in  response  to  which  the  masses 
gathered,  was  this  :  — 

MASS    CONVENTION. 

In  view  of  the  impending  crisis,  which 
seems  to  admonish  us  that  "  LIBERTY  is  TO  BE 

PRESERVED     BY    CEASELESS     VIGILANCE,"    it 

is  deemed  important  that  a  general  Mass  Con 
vention  of  the  foes  of  Slavery  and  Despotism, 
and  the  friends  of  State  and  Individual  Rights, 
be  held  in  some  convenient  place  on  the  West 
ern  Reserve  without  an  unnecessary  delay. 

We  do,  therefore,  earnestly  request  our 
Republican  friends  throughout  the  said  Western 


Reserve,  as  well  as  all  others  who  are  in  sym 
pathy  with  us  in  our  opposition  to  despotic 
usurpation  of  power,  to  meet  in  council  in  the 
City  of  Cleveland,  on  Tuesday,  the  24th  day 
of  May,  instant,  at  eleven  o'clock  A.  M. 

Arrangements  have  been  made  with  all  the 
Railroads  for  half  fare  tickets  to  and  from  tho 
Convention. 

C.  W.  Noble,  J.  J.  Ellwell, 
H.  F.  Brayton,  B.  Barker, 

J.  F.  Keeler,  H.  B.  Spelman, 

D.  L.  Wightman,       Jno.  C.  Grannis, 
R.  C.  Parsons,  W.  M.  Corner, 

J.  S.  Grannis,  James  B.  Wilbur, 

R.  P.  Spalding,  John  Coon, 

D.  R.  Tilden,  and  500  others. 

A.  G.  Riddle, 
Cleveland,  May  12,  1859. 

Of  the  meeting  we  read  thus :  — 

GREAT    MASS    MEETING. 

NORTHERN   OHIO  AWAKE. 

THE   FOES   OF    THE   FUGITIVE   ACT   IN 
COUNCIL. 

The  great  Mass  Meeting  of  Republicans  this 
morning  has  caused  a  cessation  of  all  business, 
and  the  streets  are  full  of  strangers  from  all 
parts  of  the  State.  The  influx  from  the  sur 
rounding  country  commenced  at  an  early  hour 
this  morning,  wagon  loads  of  people  arriving 
by  all  the  streets  leading  in  from  the  country 
villages.  Preparations  for  a  great  meeting  had 
been  made  on  the  Square.  A  large  platform 
had  been  erected  on  the  corner  of  the  Square, 
near  the  United  States  building,  and  tho 
regular  music  platform  in  the  vicinity  was  set 
aside  for  the  use  of  some  of  the  bands. 

THE  RAILROADS. 

The  Cleveland  and  Pittsburg  early  train 
brought  in  about  a  hundred  passengers  for  tho 
Convention,  and  several  came  in  last  evening 
by  the  different  railroads.  About  half  past 
nine  o'clock  this  morning,  the  Elyria  train 
brought  in  six  loaded  cars,  and  in  about  half  an 
hour  afterwards  the  train  from  Oberlin  brought 
in  thirteen  loaded  cars.  Seven  crowded  cars 
came  in  on  the  Cleveland,  Columbus,  and 
Cincinnati  Railroad.  From  the  Lake  Shore 
Railroad  came  in  sixteen  car  loads  of  delegates 
to  the  Convention.  The  Cleveland  and  Pitts- 
burg  Railroad  brought  in  five  car  loads,  and 
the  Cleveland  and  Mahoning  Railroad  brought 
nine  crowded  cars.  The  railroads  to-day  did 
not  bring  less  than  3,500  people  to  the  Con 
vention. 

The  Delegates  from  the  Eastern  lake  shore 
towns,  from  Wellington,  and  from  Oberlin, 
with  their  neighboring  towns,  formed  in  pro 
cession  at  the  depots,  and  marched  to  the 
Public  Square.  As  they  passed  up  Superior 
street,  the  Lake  and  Ashtabula  county  dele 
gations  led  the  way,  headed  by  a  military  band, 
and  bearing  a  banner  inscribed  on  one  side,  . 


248 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


ASHTABULA. 

Regnanto  Populi. 

And  on  the  other  side  — 

SONS  OF  LIBERTY. 

1765. 
Down  with  the  Stamp  Act ! 

1859. 
Down  with  the  Fugitive  Act ! 

As  this  part  of  the  procession  turned  the 
corner  from  Water  street,  a  handsome  national 
flag,  surmounted  with  a  cap  of  Liberty,  and 
bearing  the  legend  — 

"  SONS  OF  LIBERTY 
We  Welcome  you!" 

was  sent  from  one  of  the  stores  in  the  neigh 
borhood. 

Next  came  the  Oberlin  delegation,  marching 
two  abreast,  and  headed  by  the  Oberlin  Brass 
Band,  playing  the  "  Marseillaise."  Conspicu 
ous  in  the  procession,  was  the  venerable  figure 
of  Father  GILLETT,  seventy-four  years  of  age, 
bearing  aloft  the  "  stars  and  stripes  "  with  the 
inscription  "1776." 

They  were  followed  by  the  Wellington  dele 
gation  and  an  immense  crowd  of  persons  from 
all  parts  of  Lorain  county.  This  party  carried 
a  banner  inscribed  "  LORAIN,"  and  on  the 
other  side  — 

"  Here  is  the  Government, 
Let  Tyrants  Beware." 

ON   THE   PUBLIC   SQUARE. 

As  soon  as  the  crowd  arrived  at  the  square,  a 
very  large  delegation  went  down  to  the  jail  to  see 
the  prisoners.  Sheriff  WIGHTMAN  had  caused 
that  jail  yard  to  be  strictly  closed,  so  that  no  in 
gress  or  egress  could  be  had.  The  prisoners  were 
allowed  to  be  in  the  jail  yard,  and  loud  calls 
were  made  for  PLUMB,  PECK,  and  others  of 
the  prisoners.  Short  addresses  were  made  by 
these  gentlemen,  avowing  their  determination 
never  to  flinch  from  the  good  cause  in  which 
they  were  engaged,  but  at  the  same  time  coun 
selling  moderation.  After  a  round  of  hearty 
cheers,  the  crowd  adjourned  to  the  speakers' 
stand. 

Here  the  Convention  was  called  to  order  by 
the  appointment  of  Hon.  R.  P.  SPALDIXG  as 
temporary  President,  and  JOHN  C.  GRANXIS 
as  Secretary. 

Professor  MORGAN  invoked  the  Divine 
blessing  on  the  proceedings  of  the  day. 

Hon.  R.  P.  SPALDIXG  addressed  the  meet 
ing.  He  said  they  had  met  to  consult  on  the 
best  means  to  preserve  the  gift  of  liberty  left 


by  our  fathers.  The  founders  of  this  lie- 
public  had  left  us  valuable  rights  and  privileges, 
and  how  long  these  privileges  may  be  enjoyed 
depends  entirely  on  ourselves. 

The  speaker  referred  to  the  action  of  the 
Colonial  Congress  of  1774,  in  which  a  resolu 
tion  was  passed  providing  for  the  abolition  of  i 


the  slave-trade,  whilst  now  a  recent  convention 
at  Vicksburg,  passed  resolutions  condemning 
the  laws  for  the  prevention  of  the  slave-trade. 

Whilst  men  are  prosecuted  here  to  fine  and 
imprisonment  for  obeying  the  natural  instincts 
and  dictates  of  our  nature,  the  law  against  the 
slave-trade  is  treated  with  contempt  at  the 
South,  and  the  offenders  against  the  law  are 
set  at  liberty. 

Judge  SPALDING  concluded  by  saying  that 
we  have  not  met  to  set  at  defiance  either  the 
law  or  the  officers  of  the  law.  We  have  met 
to  manifest  the  will  and  determination  of  the 
people  in  a  peaceful  and  constitutional  manner. 
He  counselled  them  to  preserve  order.  Let 
us  make  known  our  rights,  and  our  determina 
tion  to  maintain  those  rights,  even  to  the  last 
issue  ;  but  as  you  value  your  position  as  Repub 
licans,  as  members  of  that  great  party  of  the 
right,  let  good  order  characterize  your  doings, 
and  keep  you  from  any  illegal  acts. 

This  address,  which  was  listened  to  by  at 
least  ten  thousand  persons,  was  received  with 
great  enthusiasm. 

The  President  then  announced  the  following 
names  as  forming  the  Committee  on  Resolu 
tions  :  — 

John  Coon,  Cuyahoga;  W.  H.  Upson,  Sum 
mit  ;  B.  F.  Wade,  Ashtabula ;  James  Monroe, 
Lorain;  J.  R.  French,  Lake;  H.  G.  Blake, 
Medina;  O.  P.  Brown,  Portage;  Wm.  T. 
Boscom,  Franklin ;  R.  W.  Taylor,  Mahoning ; 
Dr.  George  Howe,  Trumbull;  Peter  Hitch 
cock,  Geauga ;  William  S.  Miner,  Erie  ;  James 
M.  Ashley,  Lucas;  Frank  Sawyer,  Huron; 
Jacob  Heaton,  Columbiana ;  J.  W.  Vance, 
Knox;  W.  T.  Day,  Hamilton;  A.  Burke, 
Stark ;  A.  H.  Palmer,  Ashland ;  J.  M.  Keeler, 
Sandusky. 

The  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization 
was  then  reported  :  — 

Dr.  Alvin  Pomeroy,  Putnam;  John  F.  Con 
verse,  Geauga;  N.  P.  Schuyler,  Huron;  J.  M. 

Keeler,  Sandusky ;  J.  D.  Cox,  Trumbull ; 

,  Mahoning;  Hon.  H.  Canfield,  Medina; 

D.  C.  Allen,  Ashtabula;  Dr.  R.  C.Kirk,  Knox; 
J.  S.  Herrick,  Portage ;  Philemon  Bliss,  Lorain  ; 
A.  D.  Howe,  Lake ;  II.  D.  Cooke,  Franklin ;  N. 
Wentworth,  Ashland ;  D.  R.  Tilden,  Cuyahoga. 

The  Secretary  read  various  letters  received 
from  gentlemen  unavoidably  absent :  — 

LETTER   FROM  HON.  WM    DEXXISON,   JR. 
Columbus,  May  20,  1859. 
S.  O.  GRISWOLD,  ESQ.,  and  others  :  — 

GEXTS, —  A  prior  engagement  to  attend  a 
meeting  of  the  Republican  National  Executive 
Committee,  at  Albany,  New  York,  on  the  25th 
inst,  will  prevent  me  complying  with  your  kind 
invitation  to  attend  the  Convention  you  have 
called,  to  be  held  at  Cleveland  the  preceding  day. 

Let  me  express  my  ardent  hope  that  the  pro 
ceedings  of  your  Convention  may  be  such  as 
will  permanently  contribute  to  the  advance- 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


249 


ment  of  the  sacred  principles  of  freedom,  jus 
tice,  arid  humanity,  which  have  been  so  violently 
assailed  by  the  imprisonment  in  your  county  jail 
of  Messrs.  Plumb  and  Peck,  and  their  devoted 
colleagues,  under  the  insulting  provisions  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  and  that  in  the  contest  be 
tween  the  antagonisms  of  freedom  and  slavery 
forced  upon  us  by  the  Southern  oligarchy  and 
its  Northern  allies,  we  may  at  all  times  prove 
ourselves  worthy  descendants  of  the  heroic 
founders  of  the  Republic,  who  declared  one  of 
the  great  purposes  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
to  be,  the  securing  to  themselves  and  their  pos 
terity  "  the  blessings  of  liberty." 

Accept  the  assurance  of  my  sincere  regard 
personally,  and  of  my  uncompromising  hostility 
to  slavery  and  despotism  in  every  form. 
Truly  yours, 

W.  DEXXISOX,  JR. 

LETTER  FROM  THOMAS  SPOOXER. 

Cincinnati,  May  21,  1859. 
S.  O.  GRISWOLD  and  others :  — 

GEXTS,  —  Yours  of  the  IGth  inst.,  inviting 
me  to  attend  a  Mass  Convention  of  all  "  Foes 
of  Slavery  and  Despotism,"  to  be  held  in 
Cleveland  on  the  24th  inst.,  is  before  me. 

I  regret  that  I  cannot  be  present  to  partici 
pate  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention. 

It  is  high  time  that  the  people  of  the  North 
had  spoken  boldly  and  fearlessly  their  true  sen 
timents  upon  the  only  living  political  question 
of  the  day. 

It  is  time  that  we  had  declared  against  a  fur 
ther  extension  of  Slavery  —  that  while  we  will 
not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  States,  we 
are  determinedly  fixed  in  our  resolution,  that 
the  territories  of  our  country  shall  be  consecrated 
to  free  labor.  That  no  longer  shall  the  great 
groundwork  of  our  declaration  of  rights  —  the 
basis  of  our  laws  —  the  natural  impulses  of  man 
— -  the  great  law  of  right  —  the  dictates  of  con 
science  —  that  no  longer  shall  these  be  trodden 
down,  be  crushed  out,  a  nullity  in  our  land  — 
that  we  will  hold  sacred  and  inviolable  the 
rights  of  all  to  life  and  liberty  who  may  obtain 
a  foothold  in  the  North-west  —  that  no  longer 
will  we  countenance  a  Judiciary  who  will  under 
"  safe  precedents  "  give  up  to  slavery  those  who 
are  seeking  freedom. 

The  sympathy  of  the  State  —  of  all  lovers  of 
self  rights  —  is  with  Prof.  Peck  and  others  who 
are  now  incarcerated  in  the  jail  of  Cuyahoga 
county,  solely  for  aiding  those  who  were  ne'e- 
ing  from  Slavery  to  Freedom. 
Very  truly, 

THOS.  SPOOXER. 

LETTER  FROM  PHILIP  DORSIIEIMER. 

Buffalo,  May  18,  1859. 
S.  O.  GRISWOLD  and  others  :  — 

GEXTLEMEX,  —  I  have  the  honor  to  ac 
knowledge  the  receipt  of  your  invitation  to  at 
tend  a  Mass  Convention  to  be  held  at  Cleve- 

32 


land  the  24th  inst.  I  shall  leave  home  to 
morrow  upon  an  engagement  made  some  time 
ago,  and  shall  not  return  in  time  to  reach  Cleve 
land  on  the  day  mentioned. 

I  agree  with  you  that  the  aggressions  of  the 
Slave  power  "  are  sufficient  to  alarm  every 
true  patriot."  Every  concession  the  North  has 
made  seems  to  have  emboldened  the  South  to 
make  new  demands.  Having  defeated  us  in 
our  efforts  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery, 
Southern  politicians  now  seek  to  secure  the 
National  power  for  the  sole  purpose  of  extend 
ing  the  area  of  slavery ;  having  abolished  the 
Congressional  interdiction  upon  the  introduc 
tion  of  slaves  into  the  Federal  territories,  they 
have  now,  with  the  assistance  of  the  judiciary, 
proclaimed  as  a  part  of  the  fundamental  law, 
that  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  every 
Territory;  and  finally  Southern  statesmen  seek 
to  engage  the  Republic  in  an  infamous  and  pi 
ratical  traffic  by  the  repeal  of  the  existing  laws 
against  the  slave-trade.  These  abominable  doc 
trines,  and  above  all,  the  success  which  has 
hitherto  attended  them,  may  well  excite  the 
fears  of  the  patriot. 

I  wish  you  that  success  which  your  cause  de 
serves,  afid  remain  yours,  etc. 

PHILIP  DORSHKIMER. 

LETTER  FROM  T.  H.  COULTER. 

S.  O.  GRISWOLD  and  others,  Committee  :  — 

GEXTS,  —  If  my  business  affairs  were  not 
absolutely  compelling  my  constant  attention,  I 
should  take  great  pleasure  in  complying  with 
your  invitation  to  attend  a  Mass  Convention  of 
all  the  foes  of  slavery  and  despotism,  to  be  held 
at  Cleveland  on  the  24th  inst. 

I  should  as  soon  think  of  chaining  the  light 
ning  as  to  think  of  smothering  the  feeling  of 
resentment  aroused  in  your  manly  bosoms,  by  the 
recent  outrages  perpetrated  in  your  midst,  un 
der  the  hypocritical  cover  of  law. 

I  declared  that  we  should  reap  bitter  fruit  as 
a  party,  when  we  first  organized  as  Republi 
cans,  by  not  declaring  against  the  constitution 
ality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  Our  position 
was  too  tame  then,  and  events  now  prove  it. 

The  proper  attitude  boldly  taken  then  would 
have  rendered  our  position  as  a  party  impreg 
nable.  But  from  our  desire  to  conciliate  con 
servatism  then,  we  now  have  its  strength 
doubled  upon  us.  Thousands  of  men,  who 
:hen  declared  this  law  an  outrage  upon  the 
Constitution,  are  now  meekly  bowing  to  this 
usurpation  of  power,  and  some  of  them,  like 
Judge  Willson  and  Attorney  Belden,  are  its 
willing  instruments  of  execution.  They  are 
represented  as  having  been  its  fierce  denouncers, 
and  are  now  its  willing  supporters. 

Though  no  Republican  is  willing  to  sanction 
n  any  way  the  law,  many  allow  it  to  be  consti- 
utional.  This  is  what  we  have  lost  by  our 
ameness,  for  not  one  in  twenty,  who  now  con 
cede  this,  would  have  done  so,  if  we  had  incor- 


250 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


porated  into  our  platform  the  opposite  opinion. 
Hard  work  is  now  necessary  to  enable  us  to 
advance  to  that  position  as  a  party. 

It  must  be  done,  however,  and  Ohio,  more 
properly  than  any  other  State,  should  lead  the 
column.  Yours,  etc., 

T.    II.    COULTEK. 

Columbus,  May  23,  1859. 

LETTER    FROM    CASSIUS    M.    CLAY. 

GENTLEMEX, —  Your  favor  of  the  16th  is 
received  too  late  to  accept  it  on  my  part.  I 
deeply  sympathize  with  you  in  your  movement 
against  the  advances  of  "  slavery  and  despot 
ism."  The  scenes  which  are  now  being  enact 
ed  in  Cleveland,  where  men  are  fined  and  im 
prisoned  for  the  exercise  of  the  highest  in 
stincts  of  Heathen  Philanthropy  and  Christian 
Morality  in  violation  of  the  sacred  principles  of 
our  government  and  the  utter  overthrow  of  our 
much  vaunted  Constitution,  are  well  calculated 
to  arouse  a  sluggish  people  to  action,  and  awake 
the  sleepiest  from  their  fatal  slumbers !  I  al 
ways  hated  and  denounced  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  —  not  only  because  it  violated  the  United 
States  Constitution  —  the  return  of$  fugitives 
from  labor  being  a  duty  imposed  upon  the 
States  only,  according  to  the  unbought  dicta  of 
the  "  Expounder  of  the  Constitution,"  Daniel 
Webster,  and  denied  to  Congress,  —  but  because 
it  violated  all  the  safeguards  of  freedom, 
jeoparded  the  life,  liberty,  and  happiness,  not 
only  of  the  humble  and  hated  African,  but  of 
every  proud  Saxon  in  the  land,  and  made  jus 
tice  a  mockery  in  all  its  forms,  and  because  it 
humiliated  and  degraded  our  manhood,  and  fitted 
us  to  be  ourselves  slaves,  which  our  masters 
long  since  designed. 

Gentlemen,  allow  me  to  be  a  little  egotistical. 
In  a  letter  to  the  members  of  the  New  York 
Legislature,  dated  January  9,  1846,  more  than 
thirteen  years  ago,  I  used  these  words :  "  This 
is  no  longer  a  question  about  Africans  — 
whether  they  be  beasts  or  men  —  a  debate 
about  maudlin  philanthropy  !  —  but  whether 
we,  the  eighteen  millions  of  white  men  of  these 
States,  shall  be  free  men  or  slaves  1 " 

These  sentiments  and  utterances  were  de 
nounced  as  the  most  atrocious  and  fanatical  all 
over  the  North ;  and  what  little  reputation  I 
had  for  common  sense  was,  for  long  years,  lost ! 
What  say  you  now,  men  of  Ohio  ?  What  think 
you  of  the  expulsion  of  the  representatives  of 
Massachusetts,  seeking  legal  redress  of  wrongs  in 
the  Courts  of  the  United  States,  from  Charles 
ton  and  New  Orleans  ?  What  think  you  of 
the  army  and  navy  present  in  Boston  to  enforce 
an  unconstitutional  law  ?  What  think  you  of 
the  trials  of  American  citizens  for  their  lives 
for  "  constructive  treason  ?  "  What  think  you 
,  of  the  selling  Northern  citizens  into  Southern 
slavery  V  What  think  you  of  the  Governmental 
murders  in  Kansas  ?  What  think  you  of  the 
military  dictatorship  there  V  What  think  you 


of  the  armed  overthrow  of  the  ballot-box  by  the 
national  bayonets  ?  What  think  you  of  the 
political  attempts  to  vote  a  minority  Constitution 
over  the  heads  of  the  freemen  of  Kansas,  and 
to  drive  it  down  their  throats  with  sword  and 
ball  ?  What  think  you  of  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  that  the  black  man  has  no 
rights  which  the  white  man  is  bound  to  respect  ? 
What  think  you  of  their  dicta  that  citizens  of 
the  free  States  are  not  citizens  of  the  United 
States  ?  What  think  you  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  in  its  real  purpose  —  that  slavery  is  the 
only  sovereignty  in  these  States  —  in  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Kentucky  and  Kansas  laws — a 
man's  right  to  his  slave  "  is  higher  than  all  laws 
and  constitutions  ?  "  What  think  you  of  that 
sort  of  a  "  Higher  Law  ?  "  What  think  you 
of  the  embryo  political  movement  under  "  Dem 
ocratic  "  (!)  auspices,  which  will,  in  1860,  call 
upon  you  to  invest  Congress  with  the  power  to 
put  it  into  practice  in  all  the  Territories,  and 
then  in  all  the  States  ?  You  can't  see  specula 
tive  opinions  —  you  know  nothing  of  the  logic 
of  principles  —  you  ignore  cause  and  effect  by 
induction,  making  the  past,  future  history ! 
But  you  see  your  good  and  true  men  now  lying 
in  prison  !  You  begin  to  understand  that  thing  ! 
You  call  a  convention  on  the  24th  inst.  You 
invoke  the  countenance  and  aid  of  "  every  true 
patriot  and  friend  of  freedom ! "  Very  good ! 
You  intend  to  "  resolve,"  to  "  protest,"  to  "  de 
nounce."  Is  that  all  V  Then  go  home  and 
wear  your  chains  !  I  say,  are  you  read//  tojight? 
Not  to  fight  the  poor  Judge  at  Cleveland  —  not 
to  fight  the  Marshal —  not  to  fight  the  misera 
ble  packed  Jury  —  not  to  fight  the  tools  of  the 
Despots  —  but  the  Despots  themselves !  Not 
to  violate  the  laws  —  not  to  make  enicutes  — 
not  to  produce  anarchy,  but  to  maintain  consti 
tutional  liberty  —  peaceably  if  ice  can  — fot  - 
cibbj  if  ive  must  I  Are  you  ready  for  that  ?  If 
not,  give  it  up  now  !  Don't  go  into  a  National 
Convention  to  select  a  standard-bearer  who  is 
a  "  submissionist ! "  Don't  put  up  a  "  compro 
miser  ! "  Don't  look  out  for  a  "  conservative  ! " 
They'll  all  betray  you,  as  they  have  done! 
they  all  do  that  which  you  expected  and  desired 
them  to  do.  They  '11  all  sell  us  out  as  we  have 
been  willing  to  be  sold  !  "  The  Union  will  be 
again  in  danger !  "  I  played  prophet  thirteen 
years  ago  —  I'll  play  the  same  part  again. 

Men  do  not  lay  down  power  voluntarily ;  our 
masters,  the  slavcocracy,  are  not  going  "  to  go 
out  like  a  snuff! "  The  "  Democracy  "  intend 
to  rule  the  Union,  or  ruin  the  Union  !  I  don't 
intend,  so  far  as  I  can  prevent  —  so  far  as  I  can 
control  or  influence  the  Republican  party,  that 
they  shall  be  allowed  to  do  either.  I  want  a 
man  at  the  head  of  the  party,  who  will  be  the 
platform  of  the  party.  I  want  now  no  corn 
stalk  general,  but  a  real  general.  I  want  a  man 
whose  banners  bear  no  uncertain  sign.  When 
I  see  slave  propaqanditm  on  the  banners  of  the 
Democracy,  I  want  to  see,  in  legible  colors, 
liberty  propagandism  on,  the  flag  of  the  Kepub- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


251 


licans.  When  I  read  "  Slavery  is  higher  than 
all  laws  and  all  constitutions,"  I  want  a  scribe 
who  will  write  under  it  and  on  it,  in  letters 
like  those  of  John  Hancock,  that  is  a  lie  I  When 
the  slave-holders  say  if  you  elect  a  Republican 
President,  we  will  dissolve  the  Union,  I  don't 
want  any  one  to  put  off  the  evil  day  which 
would  follow  such  event  by  saying,  "  let  it 
slide ! "  but  some  one  who  would  stand  by  the 
tomb  of  Andrew  Jackson,  and  become  infused 
to  such  extent  with  the  spirit  of  that  old  patriot 
and  hero  —  that  he  would  be  ready  to  cry  out 
in  the  fulness  of  inspiration  :  "  By  the  Eter 
nal  —  the  Union  shall  be  preserved  !  "  I  would 
have  no  man  to  be  precipitate  —  bandy  no  hard 
•words  —  be  by  no  means  "  fussy"  —  but  stand 
ing  upon  the  great  rocks  of  State  Sovereignty 
and  National  Supremacy,  I  would  defy  the 
canting  traitors  to  Liberty,  Law,  Civilization, 
and  Humanity!  That's  what  I  mean  by  ask 
ing  you,  are  you  ready  to  jiyht !  If  you  have 
got  your  sentiments  up  to  that  manly  pitch,  I 
am  with  you  all  through  to  the  end !  But  if 
not,  I'll  have  none  of  your  conventions  —  no 
more  farcical  campaigns  ;  no  more  humbugs ; 
no  more  Fourth  of  July  orations  —  no  more 
Declarations  of  Independence  —  no  more  plati 
tudes  —  no  more  glittering  generalities  —  no 
more  rights  of  man  —  no  more  liberty,  equal 
ity,  and  fraternity!  In  obscure  places — in 
silence  and  humility,  I  will  crush  out  the 
aspirations  of  earlier  and  better  days  —  and 
attempt  the  dutiful  but  hard  task  of  forgetting 
that  I  was  born  free  ! 

Your  Obedient  Servant, 

C.  M.  CLAY. 

Messrs.  S.  O.  GRISWOLD,  etc.,  Com.,  etc., 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

THE    PROCESSION. 

On  the  adjournment,  until  half-past  one 
o'clock,  a  procession  was  formed  under  the  di 
rection  of  Marshal  SPANGLER  and  his  assistants. 
The  Bands  furnished  fine  music  while  the  pro 
cession  marched  at  times  to  the  inspiriting  music 
of  Huntoon's  drummers  and  fifers  of  Paines- 
ville.  The  cheerful  looks  of  those  composing 
the  procession,  with  the  Bands  and  the  Banners 
which  floated  gaily  in  the  breeze,  rendered  the 
spectacle  a  very  pleasing  and  inspiring  one. 
They  were  greeted  with  cheers  all  along  the 
route,  and  marched  through  the  principal 
streets. 

Hon.  E.  WADE  spoke,  in  the  interim  of  other 
exercises,  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  its  nature, 
its  constitutionality,  and  its  binding  force.  Be 
cause  a  Judge,  not  in  the  line  of  his  judicial 
duty,  pronounces  an  enactment  law,  that  does 
not  make  it  law.  He  is  not  to  make  the  law, 
but  to  look  at  it  as  it  has  been  made.  What  is 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  what  is  Justice  Tancy? 
VV  hy  !  I  wish  the  crowd  could  look  in  upon  the 
Supreme  Court,  as  I  have  done,  and  I  tell  you 
your  bump  of  veneration  would  fait  right  in. 
[Laughter.]  You  have  seen,  in  passing  by 


farmers'  barns  in  the  early  times  of  the  coun 
try,  the  sides  of  his  barn  and  outbuildings 
covered  with  the  skins  of  coons,  and  other  ani 
mals.  The  Supreme  Court  has  much  the  same 
appearance  and  the  same  nature  as  these  dried 
parchments.  The  Democracy  of  this  day  is 
opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  [Cries  of 
"  true,  true."]  In  the  Democratic  party  of  this 
nation,  eighty-five  per  cent,  is  put  in  by  the 
party  leaders. 

AFTERNOON  MEETING. 

The  temporary  Chairman,  Judge  Spalding, 
called  the  meeting  to  order  at  half-past  one 
o'clock. 

Judge  Tilden,  from  the  Committee  upon  per 
manent  organization,  reported  the  following 
officers :  — 

Permanent  Officers. 
Hon.  J.  R.  GIDDINGS,  President. 

Vice-Presidents.  —  John  P.  Converse,  Geau- 
ga ;  John  F.  Morse,  Lake, ;  Geo.  II.  Howe, 
Trumbull ;  Joseph  DeWolf,  Portage ;  James 
Dumars,  Mahoning ;  J.  W.  Vance,  Knox ;  Jacob 
Ileaton,  Columbiana ;  James  Monroe,  Lorain  ; 
Herman  Canfield,  Medina ;  Sidney  Edgerton, 
Summit ;  Dr.  A.  D.  Skillen^er,  Huron ;  N. 
Wentworth,  Ashland ;  Felix  Nicola,  Cuyahoga. 

Secretaries.  —  John  C.  Graniss,  Cuyahoga  ; 
J.  S.  Herrick,  Portage  ;  Augusta  Thieme,  Cuya 
hoga  ;  Joseph  II.  Dickson,  Lorain. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  was  accepted 
by  three  cheers,  and  the  officers  took  their 
seats. 

Judge  TILDEN  was  then  introduced  to  the 
audience  and  made  a  short  and  telling  speech, 
full  of  appropriate  and  cutting  allusions  to  the 
Federal  Court  and  to  the  officers  who  have  in 
carcerated  these  Oberlin  men.  After  throw 
ing  hot  shot  into  their  castle  and  sufficiently 
punishing  them  for  their  infamous  actions,  he 
passed  into  the  features  of  Congressional  poli 
tics,  showing  that  the  Chairmen  of  all  the  im 
portant  Committees,  and  the  majority  of  these 
Committees  were  of  the  unterrified  Democra 
cy.  Passing  rapidly  over  these,  he  threw  into 
his  remarks  many  capital  hits  at  the  dominant 
party,  which  kept  the  immense  audience  in  a 
roar. 

He  showed  up  the  inconsistency  of  the  offi- 
!  cers  of  this  Federal  Court.  Belden  had  been 
an  Abolitionist,  but  had  turned  Democrat,  but 
they  could  mark  his  words,  Belden  would  come 
yet  to  the  Republican  party,  but  every  man 
should  have  his  boots  ready  nailed  to  kick  him 
out  of  the  party. 

Outside  of  some  cannibal  and  heathen  coun 
tries  he  did  not  believe  there  was  such  an  in 
famous  Court  as  this. 

Three  hearty  cheers  thanked  Judge  TILDEN 
as  he  sat  down. 

J.  W.  VANCE,  Esq.,  of  Mt  Vernon,  was  next 
introduced. 

He  caine  here,  as  every  man  who  has  a  mind 


252 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


for  freedom  and  is  opposed  to  slavery  should 
do,  and  he  should  be  proud  to  speak  a  word  for 
free  principles.  It  was  a  fundamental  princi 
ple  of  our  government  that  all  men  had  free 
and  equal  rights,  and  these  principles  are  not 
confined  to  our  government.  They  have  their 
source  in  natural  justice,  the  great  source  of  all 
law  and  all  rights.  Shall  we,  as  freemen,  stand 
up  for  our  rights  and  defend  them  as  in  the 
days  of  the  Revolution,  or  shall  we  tamely  sub 
mit  to  tyranny? 

The  Constitution  gave  us  no  right  to  make 
slaves  of  a  part  of  our  citizens ;  on  the  con 
trary,  it  provided  that  all  should  have  equal 
rights  to  citizenship.  It  is  true  that  we  should, 
under  the  Constitution,  let  the  owner  of  escaped 
slaves  come  and  get  them  as  they  would  a  horse, 
but  the  slave-holders  were  not  satisfied  with  this, 
they  must  have  a  law  by  which  they  could 
seize  any  colored  man,  woman,  or  child,  and 
carry  them  into  slavery.  They  call,  too,  upon 
us  —  upon  all  of  us  —  to  help  them  carry  back 
into  slavery  these  persons  whom  they  seize,  and 
will  you  do  it  ?  [Cries  of  "  No,  no,  never  !  "] 
We  are  here  to-day,  not  only  to  treat  of  law 
for  ourselves,  but  to  force  the  administration 
to  obey  the  laws.  [Applause].  You  have 
some  men  and  brothers  in  yonder  jail ;  now 
what  shall  we  do  ?  Let  us  exhaust  every  law 
and  legal  means  in  our  power,  and  if  then  we 
should  fail,  which  God  forbid,  let  us  show  that 
Ohio  shall  be  free  by  the  right  of  the  people. 
[Three  cheers]. 

"  Hail  Columbia"  by  the  Chagrin  Falls  band. 

Hon.  JOSHUA  R.  GIDDIXGS  was  next  intro 
duced. 

The  old  War  Horse  spoke  as  follows,  being 
greeted  with  hearty  applause  :  — 

I  have  met  many  of  you  at  different  times, 
but  this  is  the  greatest  occasion  of  all.  Forty- 
seven  years  ago  I  first  entered  this  territory. 
I  bore  my  musket  on  my  shoulder.  The  British 
fleet  lay  in  the  offing,  and  here  on  this  ground 
on  the  10th  of  Sept.,  1812,  many  of  my  com 
panions  listened  to  the  thunders  of  Perry's  fleet, 
and  the  heroism  of  that  day  has  not  passed  and 
gone.  But  this  country  for  which  so  many  of 
our  fathers  fought  and  bled,  is  now  contam 
inated  by  the  presence  of  tyrants,  and  here  in 
this  New  England  of  the  West,  men  have  been 
arrested  and  imprisoned  for  aiding  a  fellow  man 
to  gain  his  freedom.  This  may  be  a  common 
scene  in  Africa,  but  not  here.  Had  this  tyranny 
confined  its  operations  to  Congress,  where  it 
struck  down  your  Senators  and  gagged  the 
bold  and  fearless  men  who  dared  to  raise  their 
voice  against  this  terrible  wrong,  you  could  do 
no  more  than  to  use  your  own  influence  in 
bringing  about  a  better  state  of  affairs.  When 
it  invaded  our  own  State,  and  wrongs  unheard 
of  before  were  enacted  in  the  southern  part  of 
our  State,  you  could  not  go  there  to  correct 
those  wrongs.  The  people  of  the  Western 
Reserve  could  only  shudder  at  the  wrongs  and 
hope  for  better  things. 


But  now  the  war  is  brought  to  our  own  door. 
Here  among  our  own  residences  and  homes, 
some  of  our  most  respected  citizens  have  been 
thrust  into  a  prison  for  doing  what  I  thank 
them  for  from  my  inmost  soul. 

For  thus  obeying  the  high  behests  of  Heaven's 
King,  these  men  are  now  thrust  into  a  gloomy 
prison  which  would  disgrace  the  Southern  por 
tions  of  Africa. 

But  it  is  said  that  this  man  had  no  rights 
which  we  should  respect.  It  was  said  that  God 
had  given  to  the  doughfaces  in  Congress  the 
power  to  turn  him  from  one  master  to  another 
with  no  voluntary  act  of  the  victim.  All  the 
nobleness  of  our  nature  rebels  against  such 
Atheism ;  all  human  beings  have  derived  from 
their  Creator  a  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness.  You  may  brutalize  him 
and  abuse  him  ;  but  no  more  can  human  gov 
ernment  transfer  the  right  of  human  liberty 
than  they  can  put  life  into  a  corpse. 

Now  had  Congress  the  right  to  consign  this 
man,  or  any  man,  to  everlasting  slavery  and 
bondage  ?  No,  never !  and  here  we  leave  the 
Democratic  party.  If  they  held  the  doctrines 
which  we  do  upon  this  point,  there  would  be 
no  point  of  disagreement  between  us.  But 
one  judicial  decision  that  I  know  of  has  been 
given  upon  this  fundamental  point  —  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  I  know  that  throughout  Chris 
tendom  there  is  a  universal  abhorrence  of  this 
doctrine.  As  early  as  17G5,  John  Adams  an 
nounced  that  the  right  to  human  liberty  was 
antecedent  to  all  law  or  government.  Only  the 
tories  of  the  Revolution  denied  this.  They 
were  the  men  who,  like  the  pro-slavery  party 
of  this  day,  deny  all  human  right  against  the 
will  of  tyrants.  *  Not  the  Democracy  of  this  or 
any  other  day,  hold  to  this  doctrine.  No,  such 
an  imputation  would  put  Democracy  to  the 
blush,  it  would  insult  hell  itself  to  give  it  such 
an  opinion  and  characteristic. 

I  tell  you  that  all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal,  and  that  eternal  truth  I  for  one  will 
stand  by  and  abide  by.  Men  talk  of  Constitu 
tional  laws.  There  stands  a  Constitution  that 
declares  that  all  have  equal  rights. 

I  have  no  hesitation  as  to  the  means  for  act 
ing  upon  this  great  matter  which  is  now  before 
us.  I  would  have  a  committee  appointed  to 
day,  to  apply  to  the  first  and  nearest  officer 
who  has  the  power,  that  he  shall  issue  a  writ 
for  the  release  of  those  prisoners  —  not  the 
men  who  have  now  been  summoned  to  Colum 
bus,  but  those  who  have  not  been  sentenced. 
And  I  want  to  be  appointed  on  that  committee, 
and  if  so,  I  will  promise  you  that  no  sleep  shall 
come  to  my  eyelids  this  night  until  I  have  used 
my  utmost  endeavors  to  have  these  men  re 
leased.  [Immense  applause.]  If  it  was  not 
for  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  for  which 
I  have  the  utmost  respect,  I  would  ask  for  no 
judicial  process,  but  those  men  should  be 
brought  before  you  to-day.  [Vociferous  ap 
plause.]  I  will,  if  such  a  committee  be  ap- 


OBERLIN-WELLJKGTON  RESCUE. 


253 


pointed,    apply   to  Judge   Tilden,  and  if  he  I 
flinched  in  the  exercise  of  his  duty,  and  refused  j 
to  issue  this  writ,  I  would  never  speak  to  him 
again  or  give   him  my  hand.     If  he  failed,  I 
would  go  to  another,  and  another,  until  death 
came  to  close  my  eyelids.     I  know  that  the 
Democratic  press  throughout  the  country  has 
represented  me  as  counselling  forcible  resistance 
to  this  law,  and  God  knows  it  is  the  first  truth 
they  have  ever  told  about  me. 

Now  let  me  take  a  vote.  I  want  all  in  this 
crowd  who  are  ready  to  tamely  and  timidly  ; 
submit  to  tyranny  to  speak  out.  [Not  a  voice  [ 
replied.]  Now  let  all  those  who  are  ready  and 
resolved  to  resist  when  all  other  means  fail  — 
when  your  rights  are  trampled  into  the  dust  — 
when  the  yoke  is  fixed  upon  your  necks  —  and 
•when  the  heel  of  oppression  crushes  your  very 
life  out  —  all  those  who  are  thus  ready  to  resist 
the  enforcement  of  this  infamous  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  —  speak  out.  [The  roar  which  now  arose 
from  thousands  of  voices  was  deafening.]  I 
would  have  this  voice  sound  in  the  mouth  of 
the  cannon,  and  I  would  have  it  resound  over 
every  hill,  through  every  vale,  by  every  wind 
ing  stream  and  rushing  river.  I  would  have  it 
go  roaring  in  every  tree  mountain  wind  which 
rocks  your  forests,  until  all  the  world  shall 
hear.  [Cheers.] 

And  now  let  me  say  to  the  Democrats,*  if 
there  are  any  here,  that  so  long  as  I  have  life 
and  health,  I  will  use  all  my  influence,  and  all 
legal  means  to  oppose  the  execution  of  this  law, 
— and  when  all  such  means  fail,  then  so  long  as 
I  have  strength  to  raise  and  wield  an  arm,  so 
long  I  will  resist  unto  death,  and  will  work  and 
pray  for  liberty  with  my  latest  breath. 

Deafening  and  prolonged  applause  and  cheers 
showed  the  interest  taken  by  the  vast  audience 
in  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Giddings. 

The  following  resolutions  were  then  pre 
sented  and  read  by  John  Coon,  Esq.,  chairman 
of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  and  adopted  by 
a  thundering  vote.  • 

DECLARATION. 

This  assembly  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  holding: —  T-  -  -  ^<^ 

That,  next  to  our  duty  to  the  Supreme  Be 
ing,  is  our  obligation  to  preserve  our  free  insti 
tutions  and  our  civil  liberties ;  - 

That  the  greatest  tyrants  have  been  those 
whose  titles  have  been  least  questioned ; 

That  every  violation  of  the  Constitution 
should  be  watched  with  jealousy  and  resented 
with  spirit; 

That  the  history  of  every  free  people  has 
shown  the  impossibility  of  a  cordial  compliance 
with  laws  which  neither  embody  nor  execute 
the  public  will ; 

That  the  enforcement  of  such  laws  against 
an  unwilling  people,  is  productive  only  of  evils 
threatening  public  order  and  the  stability  of 
governmental  institutions  :  and  holding  farther- 


That  the  history  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  as  recently  administered,  is  a 
history  of  repeated  injuries  and  usurpations,  all 
having  in  direct  object  the  Africanization  of 
this  continent  by  the  diffusion  and  establish 
ment  of  slavery  and  the  restriction  and  limita 
tion  of  freedom,  thus  reversing  the  ancient  pol 
icy  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  which 
looked  to  the  extinction  of  slavery  and  the  ex 
tension  of  liberty ;  and 

That  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  reversing  all 
the  well-established  rules  which  for  ages  have 
been  the  bulwark  of  personal  liberty,  vields  its 
legitimate  fruits  in  the  recent  atrocities  com 
mitted  in  the  heart  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
and  calls  upon  us  for  new  efforts  and  new  sac 
rifices  for  constitutional  liberty,  do,  therefore, 
publish  and  DECLARE, 

1st.  That  the  several  States  composing  the 
United  States  of  America,  are  not  united  on 
the  principle  of  unlimited  submission  to  their 
general  government,  but  that  by  compact,  un 
der  the  style  and  title  of  a  Constitution  for  the 
United  States,v  and  sof,  amendments  thereto, 
they  (constituted  -a. "general  ^government  'for 
special  purposes,"'and  delegated  to  that  govern 
ment  'certain  definite  'powers,  reserving  each' 
State  for  itself  the  residuary  ^  mass  of  right  to 
their , own  'self-government; "and  that  whenso 
ever 'the  general,  government  assumes  undele- 
gated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthoritative,  void, 
and  of  no  force, 'and  being  void,  can  derive  no 
validity  from  mere  judicial  interpretation  ;  that 
to  this  compact  each  State  acceded  as  a  State, 
and  is  'an  integral  party  ;  that  this  government, 
created  by  this  compact,  was  not  made  the  ex 
clusive  'J or  final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the 
powers  delegated  to  itself,  since  that  would 
have  made  its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  measure  of  its  powers ;  but  that,  as  in 
all  other  cases  of  compact  between  parties 
having  no  common  judge,  each  party  has  an 
equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infrac 
tions,  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of 'redress. 

2d.  That  the  law  commonly  known  as  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850,  was,  in  the  opin 
ion  of  this  assembly,  passed  by  Congress  in  the 
exercise  of  powers  improperly  assumed ;  and 
had  it  been  presented  as  an  original  question  to 
a  wise  and  impartial  court,  must  have  been 
held  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  and, 
therefore,  void.  /> 

3d.  That  one  of  the  most  alarming  symp 
toms  of  degeneracy  in  the  General  Govern 
ment,  is  the  pliant  subserviency  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  the  objects 
of  party  politics,  thus  greatly  diminishing  that 
public  confidence  in  the  judiciary  so  essential 
to  good  order ;  that  the  extent  to  which  the 
Supreme  Court  has  thus  compromised  its  char 
acter,  renders  it  incumbent  upon  the  people  to 
consider  what  measures  are  necessary  to  restore 
that  tribunal  to  its  ancient  estate. 

4th.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  assembly, 
an  amendment  of  the  federal  judiciary  system 


254 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


is  indispensably  necessary,  so  that  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  States  may  be  respected,  and 
individuals  guarded  from  oppression.  As  a 


mitted    until    that    great     result    be    accom 
plished. 

The  Committee  subsequently  met,  and  Mr. 


means  to  this  end,  it  is  strongly  recommended  j  Giddings  dissenting,  decided  to  await  the  de- 
that  the  life  tenure  of  judges  be  abolished,  and  \  cision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  cases  of 
that  the  judicial  office  be  limited  to  a  term  of  |  Bushnell  and  Langston. 

years;  that  Congress  so  remodel  the  judicial  j  Hon.  JOSEPH  M.  ROOT,  of  Sandusky,  was 
circuits  that  a  majority  of  citizens  of  the  United  ;  here  introduced,  and  greeted  with  cheers. 


States  shall  have  a  majority  of  the  justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court. 

5th.  That  the  recent  proceedings  of  the 
Federal  Court  for  this  District,  in  producing 
the  conviction  of  persons  indicted  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  by  the 
employment  of  the  most  disgraceful  partisan 
means,  is  without  a  parallel  even  in  the  modern 
history  of  despotism ;  that  the  victims  of  that 
Court,  now  incarcerated  in  yonder  prison,  con 
victed  or  accused  of  "  humanity  to  man,"  arc 
entitled  to,  and  we  hereby  tender  to  them,  our 
cordial  sympathy ;  and  to  make  that  sympathy 
effectual,  we  hereby  recommend : 
p"  That  a  fund  be  raised  to  be  called  The  Fund 
of  Liberty ;  and  to  the  end  that  every  Repub 
lican  on  the  Reserve  may  share  in  accumulat 
ing  that  fund,  that  the  contributions  be  limited 


He  came  down  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  with  stern  severity,  and  no 
less  so  upon  the  Federal  Court  of  Cleveland. 
It  was  not  much  to  be  surprised  at,  that  a 
Judge  could  be  found  who,  hopeless  of  any 
honorable  promotion  or  preferment,  could  only 
hope  for  it  from  executive  favor ;  nor  was  it 
surprising  that  a  District- Attorney  could  be 
found ;  but  it  was  our  shame,  and  our  fault  that 
a,  jury  could  be  found  such  as  had  sat  upon 
this  case.  The  Court  was  too  low  to  have  any 
business  brought  before  it  except  Slave  catch 
ing.  That  should  be  their  sole  business ;  but 
to" the  State  Courts  we  would  go  for  the  settle 
ment  of  the  cases  of  Bushnell  and  Langston, 
and  let  them  grant  the  release  of  these  men, 
and  unless  he  was  greatly  mistaken,  the  execu 
tive  of  the  State  would  see  that  it  was  done, 


to  one  dollar  each,  the  same  to  be  collected  un-  j  and  he  trusted  that  there  never  would  be  an 
der  the  direction  of  the  several  Republican  '  executive  who  would  not  do  such  a  noble  deed. 
County  Central  Committees  of  the  Resei 


that  three  commissioners  be  appointed  by  this 
assembly,  to  be  called  Commissioners  of  the 
Liberty  Fund,  who  shall  receive  said  fund,  dis 
burse  it  for  the  objects  named,  and  account 
therefor  by  periodical  publications  until  their 

any  surplus 


duties    are   performed;    applying 
to    the    advancement    of    7>" 
Liberty. 

6th.  That  our  fellow-citizens  of  Lorain 
county,  who  arc  now  in  jail  waiting  the  pleas 
ure  of  the  U.  S.  District  Judge,  for  their  trial, 


We  must  apply  to  the  Courts,  and  if  they  would 


grant   this   release,  it  was  well, 
would  have  another  meeting  and 


If  not,  we 
talk  it  over. 


He  thought  that  whatever  else  might  happen, 


Ohio  shall  not,  in   God's 


she  shall  not, 


be   made  a  hunting-ground  for  slave-catchers. 
[Applause  and  cheers.]     Stand  steady,  —  trust 


arc  entitled  to  their  liberty,  and  must  have  it, 
peaceably  and  in  conformity  with  the  rules  of 
law; 

In  pursuit  of  this  end  it  is 

Resolved,  That  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  of  Ash- 
tabula  County,  Herman  Canfield,  of  Medina 
County,  and  Robert  F.  Paine,  of  Cuyahoga 
County,  be  constituted  a  Committee  to  sue  out 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  behalf  of  said 
prisoners  without  unnecessary  delay,  and  that 
they  address  the  application  at  their  discretion, 
to  any  judicial  oflicer  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
having  power  to  grant  the  writ. 

7th.  That  the  chief  reliance  of  freedom  in 
the  American  Republic  rests  in  the  great  Re 
publican  party,  to  which  the  people  and  the 
age  look  for  a  restoration  of  every  branch  of 
the  federal  government  to  the  pristine  purity 
of  Jejfersonian  Republicanism;  that,  stimulated 
as  well  by  the  wrongs  and  outrages  which  were 
the  immediate  occasion  of  this  vast  assemblage, 
as  by  the  late  triumphs  of  the  people  over  fed 
eral  power  and  corruption,  it  is  the  manifest 
duty  of  Republicans  everywhere  to  renew  their 
united  efforts  with  an  energy  not  to  be  re- 


llepublicanism  and  \  in  God  and  keep  your  powder  dry,  and  look 
for  the  things  that  shall  be. 

Gov  CHASE  was  then  received  with  hearty 
and  tremendous  cheers. 

A  few  hours  ago  he  was  sitting  in  his  office 


at  Columbus,  not  expecting  to  be  present  to 
day,  but  having  received  a  summons  to  meet 
with  them  to-day,  he  had  felt  it  his  duty  to 
come,  but  he  had  not  come  to  advise  them  to 
do  any  thing  which  they  hereafter  might  have 


He  had  not  come  to  coun- 
The    American    people, 


occasion  to  regret, 
sel    any    violence. 

having  the  control  of  all  power  by  the  ballot 
boxes,  it  was  for  them  to  do  it  in  their  legiti 
mate  way. 

It  was  not  necessary  that  we,  the  sovereigns 
of  the  land,  should  resort  to  any  measures 
which  could  not  be  carried  out  at  all  times  and 
under  all  circumstances. 

Some  of  the  most  respected  citizens  of  the 
State  whom  he  had  known  for  years,  had  done 
what  they  believed  to  be  right,  and  which  not 
one  man  in  ten  thousand  would  look  up  into 
the  blue  sky  with  his  hand  on  his  heart  and  say 
was  not  right ;  they  had  been  thrown  into  con 
finement.  This  was  wrong,  and  what  should 
we  do  ?  We  exist  under  a  State  Government 
and  a  Federal  Government,  and  if  the  Govern 
ment  does  wrong,  turn  it  out.  Dismiss  the 
unworthy  servants  and  put  in  those  who  will 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


255 


do  your  will.  So  with  the  State  Governments. 
Take  the  right  course  always  and  look  to  the 
Governments  and  reform  them. 

The  Federal  Government  is  now  acting 
under  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  which  he  had 
often  expressed  his  opinion,  and  what  is  our 
redress  for  those  who  are  imprisoned  under  that 
act  ?  The  first  thing  to  do  was  to  ably  defend 
them,  as  had  been  done.  It  was  said  that  this 
law  Avas  unconstitutional.  If  this  be  so,  all  done 
under  that  law  is  null  and  void.  He  believed 
when  the  law  was  passed,  and  believed  now, 
that  that  act  was  intended  rather  as  a  symbol 
of  the  supremacy  of  the  Slave  States,  and  the 
subjugation  of  the  Free.  This  case  has  been 
brought  before  the  Courts  of  the  State,  and 
they  are  bound  to  carry  out  their  duty  under 
Buch  a  view  of  it.  If  the  process  for  the  re 
lease  of  any  prisoner  should  issue  from  the 
Courts  of  the  State,  he  was  free  to  say  that  so 
long  as  Ohio  was  a  Sovereign  State,  that  pro 
cess  should  be  executed.  He  was  in  favor  of 
reciprocity,  but  if  the  State  Court  issued  papers 
and  process,  the  Federal  Court  must  show  the 
same  deference  to  the  State  Court  that  was  at 
other  times  shown  to  the  Federal  Court.  We 
can  reform  the  Judiciary,  the  Congress  and  the 
Administration,  and  although  the  process  may 
be  too  slow  to  suit  some  of  the  more  excited  of 
the  audience,  yet  none  of  them  were  so  old 
that  they  might  not  see  the  operation  of  this 
remedy.  He  did  not  counsel  revolutionary 
measures,  but  when -his  time  came  and  his  duty 
was  plain,  he,  as  the  Governor  of  Ohio,  would 
meet  it  as  a  man. 

He  then  reviewed  the  circumstances  of  the 
arrest  and  seizure  of  the  negro  boy  John  under 
a  power  of  attorney,  and  this  process  of  a 
power  of  attorney  gave  to  the  agents  of  the 
power  the  right  to  take  John  wherever  he 
was  found,  although  at  that  time  he  was  a 
citizen  of  Ohio.  Consequently  that  paper  of 
authority  was  not  peace,  but  war,  against  a 
citizen  of  Ohio. 

His  deliberate  judgment  was  that  no  person 
could  be  seized  and  captured  while  he  was  a 
citizen  of  any  sovereign  State,  under  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  He  entered  into 
a  brief  analysis  of  the  constitutionality  of  this 
law,  showing  it  to  be  at  variance  with  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  that  document,  giving,  as  it  does, 
the  power  of  the  Judges  to  the  Commissioners 
under  this  Act. 

Who  does  not  see  in  all  these  unrighteous  ac 
cusations  and  persecutions  the  doom  of  this  law  ? 
He  remembered  the  statement  of  the  Plain 
Dealer  of  a  few  years  ago,  which  said  that  the 
origin  of  this  law  was  infernal,  and  it  must  be 
repealed  whether  Constitutional  or  not.  But  it 
vas  never  intended  by  this  clause  which  per 
mits  slavery  in  the  land,  that  it  was  to  spread 
farther  than  the  States  in  which  it  then  existed, 
and  had  they  believed  otherwise,  the  Constitu 
tion  would  never  have  been  enacted. 

Let  the  Courts  be  appealed  to,  and  let  them 


act  in  accordance  with  their  consciences  and 
their  duty  between  themselves  and  their  God. 
The  great  remedy  is  in  the  people  themselves, 
at  the  ballot  box.  Elect  men  with  backbone 
who  will  stand  up  for  their  rights,  no  matter 
what  forces  are  arrayed  against  them.  See  to 
it,  too,  what  President  you  elect  again.  Let 
such  a  man  be  selected  as  will  do  as  you  desire 
—  a  man  who  will  represent  the  people  in  the 
spirit  of  freedom  and  right,  and  administer  the 
Constitution  of  our  fathers,  the  securer  of  lib 
erty  and  not  the  prop  of  slavery. 

I  have  said  just  what  I  feel  and  think,  just 
what  I  will  live  by,  and  just  what  I  will  die  by. 
Go  on  and  be  faithful  to  your  charge  —  do  your 
duty  to  yourselves,  your  country  and  your  God. 

Gov.  CHASE  was  frequently  interrupted  by 
cheers  and  applause. 

Judge  HITCHCOCK,  of  Lake  county,  was  next 
introduced. 

Little  Lake  was  represented  here  to-day  by 
men  with  true  hearts,  and  he  stood  there  but  a 
moment  to  represent  those  true  men.  We  are 
here  to  consult  about  those  men  who  are  arrested 
and  punished  without  law.  They  could  appeal 
to  the  State  Courts  for  redress,  and  feel  confi 
dent  that  they  would  do  their  duty  according  to 
the  best  of  their  ability. 

In  relation  to  the  resolutions  passed  in  this 
town  years  ago,  and  which  were  lately  thrown 
like  a  bomb-shell  into  yonder  Court,  he  would 
simply  say  that  what  District- Attorney  Belden 
had  said  about  their  authenticity  was  wholly  . 
false.  Those  resolutions  expressed  the  speak 
er's  mind  then,  and  he  had  the  same  mind  now. 

Hon.  COLUMBUS  DELANO,  of  Mt.  Yernon, 
said  he  had  come  here  to  this  meeting  and  had 
endeavored  to  keep  out  of  sight  and  hear  others, 
but  some  rascal  had  kidnapped  him.  He  had 
long  known  the  people  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
and  had  known  them  to  be  full  of  liberty  and 
loyalty  to  human  .right.  He  had  come  to  tell 
them  that  Central  Ohio  was  ready  to  respond 
to  them  in  the  love  of  liberty.  But  he  had  not 
come  to  counsel  violence.  We  never  yet  had 
perfect  liberty,  and  were  perhaps  not  yet  pre 
pared  for  it.  But  we  have  had  forced  upon  us 
oppression  after  oppression  until  now  we  are 
accused  of  and  punished  for  crime  if  we  refuse 
to  assist  in  carrying  back  to  slavery  a  fellow 
man.  We  are  told  that  we  must  obey  all  laws. 
There  is  a  difference  in  refusing  to  obey  a  law 
and  refusing  to  enter  into  the  carrying  out  of  an 
evil  law. 

We  must  refuse  to  obey  such  laws  as  this. 
We  have  refused  and  have  been  tried  for  that. 
Law  first —  law  and  patience  —  but  with  it  all, 
a  patience  and  perseverance  that  shall  never  die, 
for  the  suppression  of  wrong. 

I  come  to-day  to  greet  the  spirit  I  see  in  your 
faces,  that,  like  that  in  Independence  Square 
when  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
read  in  Philadelphia,  turned  in  earnest  prayer 
to  God  to  give  them  strength  to  go  in  the  right 
cause.  If  you  have  not  such  a  Court  as  you 


256 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


•want,  make  such  a  court  by  the  ballot  box,  and 
your  laws  will  be  executed.  You  are  here  in 
solemn,  thoughtful,  earnest,  manly,  and  solid  de 
termination  to  do  right,  and  naught  but  right. 
Go  on  in  that  course,  and  God  will  be  with  you. 
Hon.  D.  K.  CARTTER  said  he  merely  expect 
ed  to  wind  off  abundant  speaking.  He  could 
express  his  convictions  in  a  very  few  words. 
First,  he  did  n't  believe  that  one  man  has  a  right 
to  buy  and  sell  another. 

As  a  plain  exposition  of  his  platform,  he  be 
lieved  that  this  law  which  would  send  back 
men  to  slavery,  originated  in  hell,  and  was  ex 
ecuted  by  poor  miserable  devils,  who  had  sold 
themselves  for  a  few  base  honors  or  dollars. 
The  man  who  would  assist  to  send  back  a  fel 
low  being  to  hopeless  bondage,  is,  of  all  crea 
tures  this  side  of  hell,  the  most  to  be  commiser 
ated.  On  the  theoretical  points,  therefore,  he 
thought  he  was  sound  on  this  law. 

While  he  bowed  with  the  utmost  deference 
to  all  law,  he  held  in  supreme  contempt  any  law 
that  enslaved  any  human  being.  You  have  re 
pealed  this  law  in  Ohio.  There  is  only  just 
enough  of  monumental  relics  of  this  law  now 
left,  to  show  that  it  exists  somewhere  else. 
Those  men  who  say  that  these  poor,  robbed, 
down-trodden  people  are  designed  by  the  Crea 
tor  to  be  slaves,  are  open  blasphemers,  and 
don't  believe  in  God,  hell,  or  immortality. 
That's  his  idea  of  the  religious  part  of  the  law. 
He  was  the  chief  of  sinners,  but  he  would  n't 
swap  his  chance  of  a  decent  immortality  with 
one  of  those  who  help  to  sustain  this  law.  He 
thought  the  audience  would  be  satisfied  with 
this  conservative  view  of  the  subject,  especially 
when  he  said  that  he  was  in  favor  of  having 
those  men  out  of  that  jail  the  best  way  they 
could  be  got  out. 

Mr.  Cartter's  remarks  were  received  with  fre 
quent  shouts  of  laughter  and  applause. 

JOHN  LANGSTON,  Esq.,  of  Oberlin,  was  next 
called  to  the  stand.  He  said  that  he  hated  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  as  he  did  the  Democratic 
party,  with  a  deep,  unalterable  hatred.  He 
then  went  on  with  a  clear,  noble,  and  bold  ut 
terance  of  sentiments  which  were  clothed  in  as 
eloquent  language  as  is  often  heard  upon  the 
floor  of  the  halls  of  Congress.  The  listeners  for 
got  that  he  was  a  black  man  —  he  spoke  a  white 
language  such  as  few  white  men  can  speak. 
He  trampled  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  under  his 
feet,  for  it  incarcerated  his  own  brother  and  his 
friends  and  neighbors  for  disobeying  its  bloody 
commands.  If  you  but  hate  slavery  because  it 
oppresses  the  black  man  in  the  Southern  States, 
for  God's  sake,  hate  it  for  its  enslavement  of 
white  men.  Don't  say  it  is  confined  to  the 
South,  here  it  is  on  our  neighbors  and  citizens, 
and  shall  we  say  that  slavery  does  not  affect  us  V 
As  we  love  our  friends,  as  we  love  our  God- 
given  rights,  as  we  love  our  homes,  as  we  love 
ourselves,  as  we  love  our  God,  let  us  this  after 
noon  swear  eternal  enmity  to  this  law.  Ex 
haust  the  law  first  for  these  men,  but  if  this 


fail,  for  God's  sake,  fall  back  upon  our  own 
natural  rights,  and  say  to  the  prison  walls  "  come 
down,"  and  set  those  men  at  liberty.  [Cheers.] 
Hon.  O.  P.  BROWN,  of  Portage  county,  said 
he  was  one  of  the  most  fanatical  men  upon  this 
fanatical  Western  Reserve.  In  yonder  pile 
there  is  pure  despotism.  It  makes  no  differ 
ence  whether  you  call  the  tyrants  ^Nicholas  or 
Belden,  whether  you  call  the  despot  the  Czar 
of  all  the  Russians,  or  Willson.  Infamous,  cor 
rupt,  and  devilish  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
is,  it  is  yet  white  and  pure  compared  with 
the  persons  who  have  executed  it  in  yonder 
building.  It  is  Federalism  which  fines  one 
man  $  1  for  killing  a  man,  and  another  S  600 
and  long  imprisonment  for  helping  a  man  keep 
and  save  his  life.  I  trust  if  the  Federal 
Power  is  ever  to  make  an  issue  and  test  the 
fact  whether  we  will  execute  our  laws,  let  them 
test  it  now.  They  know  not  how  soon  the 
smouldering  volcano  beneath  them  may  burst 
under  their  rotten  carcasses.  We  are  ready 
for  the  question.  Don't  let  them  put  off  this 
question  one  moment  for  our  convenience,  and 
I  say  to  you  in  conclusion,  stand  firm  by  the 
;ternal  landmarks  which  our  fathers  have  plant 
ed,  and  your  names  shall  be  handed  down  when 
those  poor  miserable  office-holders  shall  be  for 
gotten.  [Cheers.] 

Judge  CONVERSE,  Yice-President,  remarked 
that  the  ladies  had  a  work  to  do  in  this  matter. 
They  should  train  up  their  husbands,  and  those 
who  had  no  husbands  should  tell  their  lovers  to 
50  to  the  polls  and  do  their  duty,  then  come 
back  and  claim  their  reward. 

President  ASA  MAHAN  being  called  to  the 
stand,  rejoiced  to  know  that  some  of  the  prison 
ers,  whom  he  had  instructed  in  years  past  and 
taught  them  principles  of  liberty,  were  stiH 
true  to  their  duty.  He  felt  that  he  had  not 
lived  in  vain. 

Langston  had  hated  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law, 
but  the  speaker  liked  it,  for  it  was  a  monster, 
and  he  hoped  the  Devil,  its  father,  would  never 
beget  any  thing  but  monsters.  He  liked  it,  too, 
because  it  could  not  be  executed ;  and  again, 
because  it  was  political  death  to  the  party  that 
originated  and  executed  it.  When  the  news 
goes  to  Michigan,  of  what  you  have  done  here 
to-day,  a  voice  will  go  up  like  the  sound  of 
many  waters,  that  "the  Lord  God  Omnipotent 
reigneth." 

This  closing  the  speeches,  the  Yice-Presi 
dent,  Judge  CONVERSE,  announced  the  names 
of  William  Fuller,  of  Cdyahoga  Co.,  Reuben 
Hitchcock,  of  Lake  Co.,  and  Philemon  Bliss,  of 
Lorain  Co.,  as  the  Commissioners  of  the  Liberty 
Fund,  according  to  the  resolution. 

After  the  close  of  the  public  exercises,  the 
Oberlin  and  Wellington  bands  went  to  the  jail, 
and  being  admitted  into  the  yard,  played  a 
number  of  inspiriting  tunes  for  the  special  ben 
efit  of  their  brethren  in  bonds.  A  large  con 
course  of  people  gathered  upon  the  sheds, 
stones,  and  fences  near  by,  to  see  and  hear  the 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


257 


proceedings,  and  greeted  the  prisoners  and  the 
musicians  with  cheers. 

The  number  of  persons  present  upon  the 
square  to  listen  to  the  speakers  was,  at  the  low 
est  estimate,  from  ten  thousand  to  twelve  thou 
sand.  From  the  speaker's  stand  an  almost  un 
broken  sea  of  heads  covered  the  space  all  over 
that  section  of  the  Park  from  the  fountain  to 
the  fences.  The  trees,  fences,  windows,  and 
steps  of  the  custom-house  were  crowded  with 
interested  spectators,  the  whole  forming  a  con 
gregation,  equal  to  several  Fourth  of  July  cele 
brations,  with  this  exception,  that  here  the  feel 
ing  that  called  the  vast  crowd  together  was  a 
deep  and  strong  love  of  liberty,  and  not  a  fire 
cracker  and  firework  effervescence.  It  was  an 
earnest  and  working  day,  —  a  day  to  be  mark 
ed  as  an  epoch,  —  a  day  to  inspire  the  attend 
ants  with  zeal  and  stern  enthusiasm  for  God 
and  the  right.  The  calm  and  unflinching  eye, 
tone,  and  word  of  Gov.  CHASE,  the  earnest  fire 
of  Judge  SPALDIXG,  the  sarcasm  and  fearless  de 
nunciations  of  CARTTER,  the  humorous  and  open 
thrusts  of  TILDEX,  the  clarion  rallying  notes,  the 
earnest  expostulation  and  thundering  anathemas 
of  GIDDIXGS,  and  the  bold,  manly,  energetic 
counsels  of  HITCHCOCK,  ROOT,  DELAXO, 
BROWN,  MAIIAX,  VANCE,  and  WA*>E,  all  these 
will  not  soon  be  forgotten  by  the  participants 
in  the  events  of  the  Mass  Convention  of  May 
24,  1859.  We  have  had  a  good  meeting,  one 
that  we  may  be  proud  of  as  the  gathering  of 
the  clans  of  independent  freemen,  and  as  such 
let  us  "  sound  its  praise  abroad." 

THE   MEN    OF    LORAIN   AND    THE    PRISONERS. 

When  the  Lorain  procession,  some  two  thou 
sand  strong,  marched  round  the  public  square 
to  the  vicinity  of  the  jail,  in  which  their  friends 
and  neighbors  are  inhumanly  incarcerated  by 
the  Government  pursuers  under  the  infamous 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  the  greetings  were  hearty 
and  vociferous.  As  soon  as  the  long  procession 
broke  up,  the  jail  yard  was  surrounded  by  a 
dense  mass  of  the  people,  and  the  Oberlin  vic 
tims  of  Federal  Court  persecution,  kindly  per 
mitted  by  Sheriff  WIGIITMAN  to  occupy  the 
yard,  shook  hands  over  the  rough  fence  with 
the  freemen  who  pressed  forward  to  cross  palms 
with  the  moral  heroes  over  whose  heads  waved 
the  tattered  stars  and  stripes  which  they  had 
flung  from  the  battlements  of  the  prison.  The 
scene  has  no  parallel  in  the  annals  of  the  Re 
public,  and  it  will  be  historic. 

A  personal  greeting  for  all  was  impossible, 
and  the  cry  rose  for  "  LANGSTOX."  Messrs. 
LANGSTON,  PECK,  PLUMB,  and  FITCH  were 
successively  called  out,  and  briefly  responded  in 
the  spirit  and  words  of  Christian'  men  and  true 
patriots.  Their  remarks  were  loudly  applaud 
ed,  and  made  a  deep  impression.  When  Mr. 
FITCH  concluded,  the  people  quietly  withdrew 
to  the  public  square,  though  many  sought  and 
were  permitted  interviews  with  the  prisoners 
inside  the  yard  and  jail.  Indeed,  the  prisoners 

33 


held  a  pleasant  levee  all  day  —  ladies  and  gen 
tlemen,  acquaintances  and  strangers,  from  far 
and  near,  constantly  thronging  the  prison. 

MR.  c.  H.  LANGSTON'S  REMARKS. 

GENTLEMEN,  —  I  will  not  insult  you.  I 
will  not  come  from  the  dungeon  of  the  jail  of 
Cuyahoga  county  to  address  free  and  honest 
citizens  of  Ohio.  Imagine  a  thief,  a  counter 
feiter,  or  a  murderer  coming  forth  from  yonder 
grated  cells  to  address  honorable  citizens- — 
men  guilty  of  no  crime.  How  absurd.  HOAV 
ridiculous.  I  am  a  felon,  tried,  convicted  and 
sentenced  for  wilful  and  malicious  violation  of 
the  laws  of  this  country.  We  live  in  a  peculiar 
country,  in  a  peculiar  age,  and  now  we  exist 
under  very  peculiar  circumstances.  We  are 
taught  that  this  is  the  land  of  the  free  ;  yet  we 
are  imprisoned  for  breaking  the  bonds  of  the 
oppressor,  giving  liberty  to  the  captive,  and  let 
ting  the  down-trodden  and  the  oppressed  go 
free. 

Shall  we  submit  to  this  outrage  on  our  rights  ? 
[Crowd  shouted  no !]  Are  you  here  to-day  to 
obey  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  ?  [No !]  Are 
you  here  to  sustain  the  dicta  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  ?  [No !]  Are  you  here  to  support 
the  decision  of  the  United  States  Court  of  the 
Northern  District  of  Ohio  V  [No  !  in  thunder 
tone.] 

The  foul  spirit  of  slavery  has  crushed  the 
rights  of  the  States  beneath  its  iron  heel,  and 
led  the  Federal  Judiciary  captive  at  its  despotic 
will.  Shall  it,  too,  crush  out  the  spirit  of  the 
free  citizens  of  Ohio  V  Will  you  tamely  sub 
mit  to  this  tyranny  and  despotism  ?  Will  you 
not  defend  your  own  rights,  sustain  your  own 
liberty  and  roll  back  this  tide  of  judicial  usur 
pation  which  is  sapping  the  very  foundation  of 
your  country's  liberty,  so  that  being  free  and 
untrammelled  yourselves,  you  may  assist  us  who 
are  groaning  beneath  the  cruel  weight  of  gigan 
tic  wrongs  and  brutal  oppression  V  [Three 
cheers  were  given  for  Langston.] 

PROF.   II.   E.   PECK'S   REMARKS. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  It  does  us  good  to 
look  upon  your  honest  faces.  We  see  m  them 
signs  at  once  of  determination  and  sympathy. 
We  learn  from  them  that  you  are  resolutely  on 
the  side  of  right,  and  that  you  are  disposed  to 
feel  for  those  who  suffer  for  the  right. 

The  sympathy  you  express  indicates  an  ap 
preciation  on  your  part  of  the  trials  to  which 
we  have  been  subjected.  It  will  not  be  im 
proper,  therefore,  for  me  to  say  in  your  pres 
ence,  that  much  as  our  inconveniences  are 
lightened  by  the  generous  kindness  of  the  of 
ficers  who  have  charge  of  us,  and  by  the  com 
miserating  care  of  friends,  our  confinement 
is  irksome  and  painful  to  us.  To  men  of  active 
habits  like  ourselves,  life  in  a  jail  cannot  but  be 
oppressive.  We  miss  exceedingly  our  usual 
ditties,  pursuits,  and  pleasures;  and  it  is,  a& 


258 


HISTORY   OF  THE 


you  will  readily  believe,  a  pressing  grief  to  be 
separated  from  our  homes  and  families. 

But,  gentlemen,  irksome  and  painful  as  our 
present  life  is,  it  is  not  so  trying  as  was  the  life 
we  led  when  we  were  anticipating  the  assault 
which  terminated  in  the  arrest  and  rescue  of 
John  Price.  To  know  that  armed  villains  were 
skulking  about  our  village,  to  be  at  every  step 
importuned  for  counsel  oy  poor  wretches  who 
lived  in  terror  of  arrest ;  to  have  our  premises 
swarmed  at  night  with  those  who  clung  to  their 
neighbors  for  the  protection  with  which  they 
could  not  provide  themselves,  to  be  conscious 
that  a  storm  of  marauding  violence  was  soon  to 
burst  upon  us  and  to  be  in  suspense  as  to 
where  or  when  it  was  to  fall,  and  whether  its 
issue  might  not  be  one  of  blood,  this  was  dis 
tress,  this  was  discomfort  to  which  even  that  of 
life  in  a  jail  makes  but  a  poor  comparison. 

And  it  cheers  us  to  be  able  to  know  that 
what  we  now  suffer  is  doing  something  towards 
preventing  a  recurrence  of  those  disgraceful 
scenes  which  occurred  before  and  at  the  arrest 
of  John  Price.  We  believe,  and  your  presence 
here  to-day  testifies  to  us,  that  the  issue  of  our 
present  griefs  will  be  the  making  of  man-hunt 
ing  upon  the  Reserve  a  difficult  and  dangerous 
pursuit. 

Let  us  in  acknowledging  your  sympathy, 
urge  you  to  bear  your  part  towards  ending  the 
business  of  man-enslaving  hereabouts.  Let  us 
charge  you  to  fear  no  bonds,  and  to  be  terrified 
bv  no  penalties  when  the  law  forbids  you  to 
give  succor  to  the  fugitive.  Help  him  as  he 
has  need,  and  if  you  be  imprisoned  for  the  act, 
the  consciousness  of  well-doing  and  the  earnest 
sympathy  of  loving  hearts  will  both  cheer  and 
reward  you.  So  have  we  been  abundantly 
cheered  and  rewarded,  and  never  more  than  in 
meeting  you  to-day. 

MR.  PLUMB'S  nEMARics. 

Mr.  Plumb,  after  being  repeatedly  called  for, 
mounted  the  post  of  the  jail-yard  fence  and 
said :  — 

GEXTLEMKX,  —  I  object  to  undertaking  to 
make  a  speech  from  my  present  position,  lest 
by  some  mishap  I  find  myself  "  astride  the 
fence,"  a  calamity  which  hitherto  has  never  be 
fallen  me.  But  I  cannot  forbear  to  say  a  word 
to  this  vast  multitude  of  good  men  and  true, 
gathered  from  every  part  of  Northern  Ohio, 
whose  presence  here  to-day  gives  assurance 
that  the  great  heart  of  the  people  is  stirred  as 
it  never  has  been  before.  Gentlemen,  you  are 
here  to-day  because  you  have  an  intelligent 
appreciation  of  the  important  truth  that  the 
rights  of  the  meanest  inhabitant  of  our  great 
State  cannot  be  ruthlessly  trampled  under  foot, 
without  endangering  your  own. 

You  are  here  because  you  clearly  apprehend 
the  fact  that  a  great  political  revolution  is  going 
forward,  a  revolution  not  second  in  importance 
to  that  of  177G,  that  being  a  conflict  which  re 
sulted  in  deciding  the  question  of  National  In 


dependence  of  a  foreign  tyrannical  power, 
while  this  "  irrepressible  conflict "  is  to  go  on 
until  the  still  greater  question  of  personal  free 
dom  is  settled,  a  question  in  which  your  chil 
dren  and  your  children's  children  have  an  un 
told  interest. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  you  appre 
hend  these  points,  that  you  know  your  rights, 
and,  knowing,  dare  maintain  them.  Your  visit 
to  this  jail,  gentlemen,  is  doubtless  to  extend  to 
us  the  assurance  of  your  approbation,  for  which 
you  have  our  thanks,  but  you  will  soon  repair 
elsewhere  to  hear  from  those  who  are  prepared 
properly  to  address  you,  and  I  will  not  detain 
you  longer. 

For  one  I  feel  grateful  that  I  have  enjoyed 
the  privilege  of  representing  somewhat  your 
opposition  to  unrighteous  laws,  and  their  at 
tempted  enforcement  by  the  Federal  court. 
The  walls  of  a  prison,  though  not  to  be  coveted, 
by  any  manner  of  means,  as  an  abiding  place, 
have  furnished  me  with  suitable  surroundings, 
wherewith  to  study  over  again  the  great  prin 
ciples  of  human  rights  and  their  practical  appli 
cation  to  the  wants  of  man,  so  that  I  feel  to-day 
strengthened  by  review  to  go  forth  better  pre 
pared  for  future  conflicts  with  the  giant  wrong 
of  our  land. 

And  let  me  say  in  conclusion,  that  should  our 
noble  State  now  utter  her  sovereign  voice 
through  an  undivided  judiciary  in  favor  of 
State  rights,  and  the  protection  of  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen  from  the  persecutions  of  the  slave 
power,  through  a  federal  judiciary,  I  am  con 
tent. 

MR.   J.    M.    FITCH'S    REMARKS. 

GENTLEMEN, —  I  cannot  think  the  multitudes 
who  compose  this  assemblage  are  prompted  by 
the  curiosity  which  they  feel  when  visiting  a 
menagerie,  and  yet  I  confess  my  feelings,  while 
exhibiting  myself  to  you,  remind  me  of  those  I 
had  as  I  stood  in  the  Zoological  Gardens  of 
London  last  fall. 

No,  no,  you  are  actuated  by  nobler  motives 
than  the  gratification  of  curiosity.  Gentlemen, 
I  cannot  make  a  speech  to  you  on  such  an  oc 
casion.  The  very  presence  of  these  thousands 
of  earnest  souls  is  the  grandest  speech  that  can 
be  uttered.  You  see  us  the  inmates  of  a  jail, 
and  not  ashamed.  Still  it  is  a  serious  thing  to 
shut  within  prison  walls  citizens  of  the  free 
State  of  Ohio,  who  are  incapable  of  a  crime.  It 
is  a  serious  thing  wrhen  the  little  children  to 
whom  we  have  taught  morals  and  religion  in 
our  Sabbath  schools,  inquire,  with  wondering 
eyes,  the  meaning,  when  their  teachers  are  shut 
within  a  jail.  Upon  what  times  are  we  fallen, 
when  our  little  children  must  call  after  us,  as 
they  stand  weeping  upon  the  threshold  of  our 
dwellings,  and  say  as  mine  did,  "  Come  back, 
Pa,  as  soon  as  you  can  get  out  of  jail.  I  shall 
want  to  see  you."  And  are  we,  then,  criminals  ? 
Are  we  justly  arraigned  for  a  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  land  ?  Can  that  be  law  which  con- 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


259 


travcncs  even*  principle  of  right,  "whether  natu 
ral  or  revealed  ?  Can  a  few  graceless  men 
who  may  meet  at  Washington,  and  by  trickery 
and  management  secure  the  passage  of  an  act 
like  that,  which  we  to-day  denounce,  bind  it 
upon  our  consciences  by  calling  it  a  law  ? 

I  read  the  answer  in  the  earnest  faces  before 
me.  It  is  a  great  comfort  to  us,  while  enduring 
this  imprisonment,  to  know  that  when  we,  who 
are  now  incarcerated,  have  been  sufficiently 
ground  between  the  upper  and  nether  millstones 
of  Federal  power,  that  there  are  hundreds  of 
thousands  more  of  just  such  in  our  noble  State, 
who  are  ready  to  enter  the  hopper  as  future 
grists.  No,  Gentlemen,  we  have  not  violated 
law.  Ours  is  not  the  status  of  felons  ;  and,  till 
we  die,  we  will  not  admit  it,  in  any  degree,  by 
giving  a  cent  of  bail.  While  there  is  any  thing 
left  of  us  we  shall  be  found  resisting.  Why, 
Gentlemen,  my  feelings  lead  me  to  remember 
the  farmer's  pugnacious  animal  which  was  so 
determined  to  push  for  the  right,  that  it  was 
thought  necessary  to  furnish  him  disciplinary 
exercise  for  his  butting  propensities.  As  the 
farmer  assures  us,  this  animal  resolutely  fought 
a  beech  maul  suspended  from  a  limb  till  nothing 
was  left  of  him  but  the  tip  end  of  his  tail;  but 
this  tip  was  so  surcharged  with  the  same  deter 
mined  resistance,  that  at  every  rebound  of  the 
maul,  Mr.  Tail  pitched  into  it.  Even  so,  if 
possible,  do  we  feel  like  resisting  the  Fugitive 
•Slave  Law  against  all  odds,  and  while  a  particle 
of  our  proper  selves  remains.  We  have  tram 
pled  on  this  infamous  enactment  many  a  time 
in  our  day,  and  never  while  God  shall  spare  us, 
will  we  yield  obedience  to  its  wicked  demands. 
Pot-house  politicians  may  utter  the  law,  and  pro- 
slavery  Courts  may  try  and  sentence  us  if  they 
please,  but  it  shall  be  enough  for  us  to  know  that 
the  Great  Master  saith  of  all  those  who  feed  the 
hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  and  help  the  poor : 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of 
these  my  brethren  ye  did  it  unto  me." 

LETTER  FROM  MR.  GIDDINGS  —  CORRECTION. 

ANGIEU  HOUSE,  Wednesday  Morning. 
Editor  of  the  Leader,  —  In  your  report  of 
my  remarks  yesterday,  I  am  made  to  say,  "  If 
.it  was  not  for  the  Supreme  Court,  I  would  ask 
for  no  judicial  process,  but  these  men  should  be 
brought  before  you  to-day."  The  most  casual 
reader  will  see  that  this  remark  is  in  conflict 
with  other  portions  of  my  speech  as  reported. 
What  I  did  say  was  —  "I  would  not  wait  one 
hour  for  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  but 
would  obtain  process  from  the  nearest  judicial 
officer,  and  it  I  could  direct  its  proceedings, 
•would  have  the  prisoners  brought  at  once  to  tfie 
stand,  and  there,  in  the  presence  of  the  people 
would  have  them  released,  that  all  might  witness 
the  process  by  which  citizens  of  Ohio  are  set  at 
liberty  when  imprisoned  under  the  Fugitive  act." 
'  j  I  do  not  blame  your  reporters.  I  "know  the 
difficulty  they  meet  in  reporting  me  ;  but  this 
remark,  as  it  stands,  may  hereafter  be  quoted 


separately  from  other  parts  of  the  speech,  and 
made  to  imply  an  invitation  to  disregard  law, 
and  proceed  in  a  form  that  would  be  revolution 
ary,  while  no  such  intimation  ever  escaped  my 
lips  or  pen.  But  my  position  has  been,  now  is, 
and  probably  will  be  while  I  live,  that  when  the 
forms  of  law  shall  fail,  and  peaceful  resources 
be  exhausted,  I  would  maintain  the  liberties  of 
our  citizens  against  the  Fugitive  act  by  force,  and 
I  said  yesterday  that  so  far  as  the  Democratic 
press  represented  me  as  entertaining  that  view, 
it  had  done  me  justice.  J.  li.  GIDDINGS. 

VISIT   OF   THE    SABBATH   SCHOOL. 

One  of  the  most  touching  of  all  the  scenes 
in  this  exciting  panorama,  occurred  on  Satur 
day,  July  2,  when  four  hundred  Sabbath  School 
children  applied  at  the  jail  to  see  their  Super 
intendent  !  Month  after  month  they  had  looked 
toward  his  wonted  place  for  him  in  vain  —  a 
place  from  which  he  had  not  been  so  long  ab 
sent  for  sixteen  years ;  and  now,  no  longer 
patient,  they  came  trooping  like  little  angels  as 
they  were,  and  beat  with  their  very  wings 
upon  the  prison  door.  A  long  account  lies  be 
fore  us  of  the  day's  exercises  and  incidents, 
which  it  is  difficult  to  refrain  from  quoting 
entire.  But  amid  the  press  of  good  things,  we 
must  be  content  with  extracts.  We  cut  from 
the  editorial  columns  of  the  Morning  Leader :  — 

Four  Hundred  Sabbath  School  Children  visit 
their  Superintendent  in  Prison. 

At  11  o'clock  on  Saturday  morning,  our 
streets  were  enlivened  by  a  procession  of  Sab 
bath  School  scholars  and  teachers,  who  came 
on  the  Toledo  train  from  Oberlin. 

They  were  led  by  an  escort  from  this  city, 
who  met  them  at  the  depot,  when  the  proces 
sion  was  formed  under  the  direction  of  Professor 
JOHN  M.  ELLIS.  LELAND'S  Band  discoursed 
appropriate  music  as  the  little  army  marched  in 
grand  style  up  through  Superior  street  to  the 
Public  Square. 

At  the  head  of  the  Procession  was  a  splendid 
Banner,  inscribed  as  follows  :  — 


1833.  1S59. 

Oberlin   Sabbath  School, 
J.  M.  FITCH,  Superintendent. 

"  Stand  up  for  Jesus." 
"  Them  that  Honor  Me  I  will  Honor." 
"  Feed  my  Lambs." 


Each  class  bore  a  small  banner,  with  the 
name  of  the  School  and  of  the  Superintendent, 
as  well  as  the  number  of  the  class. 

The  weather  in  the  morning  was  hot,  and 
the  dust  troublesome  to  the  earnest  little  folk, 
but  this  was  soon,  forgotten  amid  the  enlivening 


260 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


scenes  of  the  Park,  and  the  children  seemed 
anxious  to  press  on  to  the  jail,  to  greet  once 
more  their  beloved  Superintendent,  whose  im 
prisonment  has  for  eighty  days  separated  him 
from  his  little  flock. 

The  throng  of  little  feet  soon  pressed  the 
prison  floor,  and  the  various  rooms,  stairways, 
halls,  and  cells  were  filled;  each  anxious  to 
grasp  the  hand  of  one  of  the  men  of  whom 
Judge  WILLSON  impiously  said  that  they  were 
"  not  good  Christians." 

After  lunch  in  the  Park,  they  were  escorted 
by  the  Plymouth  Sabbath  School  to  the  Ply 
mouth  Church,  where  a  series  of  pleasant  ex 
ercises  were  held,  and  the  touchstone  of  the 
following  sentiment  applied,  with  such  a  result 
as  might  have  been  anticipated  :  — 

"  OUR  SUPERINTENDENT.  We  respect  him 
more,  and  love  him  better  to-day  than  ever 
before  ! " 

The  Oberlin  School  returned  to  the  yard  in 
front  of  the  jail  about  5,  p.  M.,  to  listen  to  what 
the  Superintendent  and  others  of  the  prisoners 
had  to  say,  and  bid  them  "  Good-by." 

Prof.  ELLIS  called  for  Mr.  FITCH,  who  came 
forward  and  addressed  the  children  as  fol 
lows  :  — 

MY  DEAR  CHILDREN,  —  I  am  exceedingly 
glad  to  see  you,  and  I  am  greatly  gratified  to 
observe  the  pains  you  have  taken  to  visit  your 
Superintendent  in  a  body.  These  beautiful 
banners,  and  all  these  other  evidences  of  your 
interest  gratify  me  much.  I  mean,  they  make 
me  glad,  that  is  the  better  word.  I  cannot  suit 
ably  express  the  happiness  I  feel  on  seeing  you 
all  once  more.  May  God  bless  the  precious 
children  1 

***** 

For  sixteen  years  I  have  endeavored  to  be 
faithful  in  instructing  you  in  morals  and  relig 
ion,  and  I  have  often  especially  warned  you  to 
be  careful  in  your  habits,  and  to  avoid  the  great 
disgrace  of  being  sent  to  jail.  Hitherto  scarcely 
a  member  of  our  dear  school  has  ever  disgraced 
us  in  such  a  way.  But  what  do  I  now  see ! 
What  great  evil  has  overtaken  you !  What 
great  crime  have  you  now  committed !  Here  I 
behold  you  all  in  jail  I  How  shall  I  account 
for  it  V  I  remember  my  legal  friend,  one  of  our 
prisoners,  says  some  people  are  brought  to  jail 
by  the  Marshal's  warrant,  and  others  by  an  at 
tachment.  Surely,  this  is  the  explanation.  An 
"  attachment "  must  have  brought  you  here,  for 
such  precious  children  as  those  who  now  crowd 
around  me,  in  this  jail-yard,  are  incapable  of  a 
crime. 

You  must  have  noticed,  my  children,  that 
two  classes  of  people  have  in  all  ages  been  made 
the  inmates  of  prisons.  Wicked  people,  who 
harm  the  world,  and  the  ^ood  and  holy,  who 
are  so  far  in  advance  of  their  age  that  the  wick 
ed  world  misunderstands  them.  The  Bible  and 


history  will  assure  you  of  the  truth  of  what  I 
say.  To  which  class  do  your  Superintendent 
and  his  companions  belong  ?  I  will  not  here 
say  we  are  representatives  of  the  good  and  holy. 
Let  our  past  lives  tell  their  own  tale.  But  this 
I  will  say,  —  our  friends,  —  those  who  uphold 
our  sentiments,  —  those  who  applaud  our  course, 
and  who  spurn  the  infamous  1  ugitive  Act  under 
which  we  are  imprisoned,  as  the  devil's  own  in 
strument,  are  among  the  wise,  the  learned,  the 
good,  and  the  holy  of  earth.  They  are  those 
who  have  despised  personal  ease,  and  worldly 
gain,  and  have,  during  their  whole  lives,  devot 
ed  themselves,  body  and  soul,  to  the  work  of 
doing  good.  I  see  just  at  my  right  hand  our 
venerable  father  KEEP,  a  man  with  the  weight 
of  many  years  upon  him.  He  has  preached 
this  gospel  of  Jesus  for  more  than  fifty-Jive 
years,  and  yet  with  a  youthful  spirit  he  mingles 
with  the  children  to-day.  On  what  times  are 
we  fallen  when  such  men  are  considered  fel 
ons, —  fit  tenants  of  a  jail ;  but  their  persecu 
tors,  who,  perhaps,  have  defrauded  the  halter 
of  its  due,  go  free  as  if  they  were  the  good ! 

Yet  thus  has  it  always  been.  The  motto  on 
this  beautiful  banner,  which  the  excellent  May 
or  of  our  town  is  holding  by  my  side,  is  the 
text  for  us  all.  "  Stand  up  for  Jesus."  These 
words  of  the  dying  Tyng,  are  the  words  for  us 
to-day.  So  will  we  do  while  life  shall  last. 

We  are  compelled  to  endure  painful  impris 
onment,  but  we  have  done  no  wrong.  We  ap 
peal  to  God  above  and  all  the  holy,  that  to  feed 
the  hungry,  to  clothe  the  naked,  and  to  securely 
hide  and  safely  convey  away^  a  poor  and  help 
less  brother,  who  is  panting  in  his  haste  to  es 
cape  from  the  hands  of  robbers,  is  to  do  right, 
and  only  right. 

***** 

Before  I  close,  I  wish  to  read  a  sweet  hymn 
from  this  little  volume,  which  must,  I  think, 
have  come  down  from  heaven.  I  do  not  mean 
that  it  came  down  all  bound  in  this  way,  but  it 
was  sent  to  Prof.  PECK,  from  whom  I  know  not, 
and  its  sentiments  I  am  sure  came  down  from 
heaven. 

"  God  made  all  his  creatures  free: 
Life  itself  is  Liberty; 
God  ordained  no  other  bands 
Than  united  hearts  and  hands. 

"  Sin  the  primal  charter  broke ; 
Sin,  itself  earth's  heaviest  yoke; 
Tyranny  with  sin  began, 
Man  o'er  brute  and  man  o'er  man. 

"  But  a  better  day  shall  be, 
Life  again  be  Liberty, 
And  the  wide  world's  only  bands 
Love-knit  hearts  and  love-knit  hands. 

"  So  shall  envy,  slavery  cease, 
All  God's  children  dwell  in  peace, 
And  the  new-born  earth  record, 
Love,  and  love  alone,  is  Lord." 

I  close  by  uttering  the  sentiment  which  I 
have  so  often  expressed  in  your  hearing,  and 
which  I  have  earnestly  endeavored  to  impress 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


261 


upon  your  minds,  to  -wit :  DO  RIGHT  !  ALWAYS 
DO  RIGHT  !  Nothing  shall  by  any  means  harm 
you  if  ye  be  doers  of  THAT  WHICH  is 
RIGHT. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  F.'s  remarks,  a  beautiful 
and  appropriate  hymn  was  sung  by  Prof. 
ELLIS,  Mr.  VETTER,  Miss  CHURCH,  and  Miss 
COWLES,  each  stanza  ending  with  an  exhorta 
tion  to  "  Do  Right." 

Prof.  PECK  was  called  out  and  spoke  as  fol 
lows  :  — 

MY  YOUNG  FRIENDS,  —  I  have  often  seen 
you  since  we  came  here.  At  night-fall,  as  I 
have  walked  upon  the  house-top  to  enjoy  the 
glories  and  beauties  of  sunset,  it  has  occurred 
to  me  that  those  I  love  were  enjoying  the  same 
glowing  scene.  The  thought  has  tempted  me 
to  "  go  home."  And  I  have  done  so.  I  have 
clambered  up  by  one  golden  beam  and  let  my 
self  down  by  another,  and  so  I  have  stood 
among  scenes  and  friends  dear  to  my  heart.  I 
have  seen  you  and  your  parents,  and  the  loved 
places  in  which  I  have  been  accustomed  to  as 
sociate  with  you  and  other  friends.  But  it  has 
been  only  in  my  spirit  that  I  have  thus  made  a 
journey  and  seen  you.  I  have  not  been  able 
to  talk  with  you.  Now  I  look  upon  you  in 
very  person,  and  am  permitted  to  speak  to 
you. 

And  how  shall  I  speak  to  you  ?  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  know.  But  I  may  interest  you  some 
what  if  I  tell  you  I  have  learned  since  I  came 
here,  what  I  never  very  much  thought  of  be 
fore,  that  many  parts  of  the  Bible  —  the  blessed 
book  which  you  study  from  Sabbath  to  Sab 
bath —  were  written  in  prisons,  and  that  all  of 
it  is  grandly  good  reading  for  those  who  are 
cast  into  prison  for  doing  right. 

Has  it  ever  occurred  to  you  that  Isaiah, 
whose  style  is  so  glowing,  wrote  many  of  his 
prophecies,  and  Daniel  many  of  his,  in  prison  ? 
Have  you  ever  reflected  that  Paul  wrote  some 
of  his  most  useful  epistles  while  bolts  and  bars 
shut  him  from  the  world,  and  that  John  was  a 
prisoner  when  he  penned  the  Apocalypse  ? 
It  will  interest  you,  I  am  sure,  to  take  your 
Bibles  and  note  how  many  passages  were  writ 
ten  in  prison. 

And  I  can  assure  you,  my  young  friends, 
that  whether  much  or  little  of  the  Bible  was 
written  in  prison,  it  is  all  good  for  men  who  are 
"  in  bonds."  Such  we  have  many  times  found 
to  be  the  fact  since  we  came  here. 

I  wish  I  could  adequately  set  before  you  one 
instance  of  it  which  I  shall  never  forget.  It 
•was  the  evening  of  the  day  on  which  we  re 
ceived  the  intelligence  that  the  Supreme  Court 
had  decided  against  us  in  our  "  habeas  corpus  " 
case,  of  which  all  of  you  know.  We  had  for 
days  and  weeks  looked  forward  to  this  decision 
with  most  agonizing  expectation.  At  length 
the  telegraph  informed  us  that  we  were  de 
feated.  Oh !  what  anguish  came  upon  us  then. 
For  my  own  part,  I  suffered  more  on  that 
dreadful  night  than  I  did  when  my  dear  first 


born  died  in  my  arms.  Well,  a  sorrowful 
group,  we  gathered  ourselves  that  evening  for 
our  usual  worship.  It  was  my  privilege  to  con 
duct  the  exercises.  I  opened  the  Bible,  as  I  at 
first  thought  accidentally,  but  as  I  soon  knew 
providentially,  at  the  sweet  Psalm  which  begins, 
"  Fret  not  thyself  because  of  evil  doers."  As 
I  read  that  first  verse,  it  seemed  as  if  the  words 
were  written  purposely  for  us.  I  paused  an 
instant,  and  every  syllable  of  the  sentence  went 
like  a  plummet  to  the  bottom  of  our  hearts. 
Then  I  read  another  verse,  and  that  seemed 
better  than  the  first.  It  was  received  with 
breathless  silence  from  all.  And  as  I  read  on, 
"  Commit  thy  way  unto  the  Lord,  trust  also  in 
Him  and  He  shall  bring  it  to  pass ; "  and  "  For 
yet  a  little  while  and  the  wicked  shall  not  be ; " 
and  "  The  steps  of  a  good  man  are  ordered 
by  the  Lord,  and  He  delighteth  in  his  way ; " 
"  Though  he  fall  he  shall  not  be  utterly  cast 
down ; "  it  seemed  as  if  the  whole  Psalm  had 
been  written  for  our  special  use  at  that  particu 
lar  time. 

And  on  several  occasions,  we  have  been 
struck  with  a  like  appropriateness  in  Bible  nar 
ratives  or  truths  to  our  cases.  So,  my  young 
friends,  I  can  commend  the  Bible  to'  you  as 
being  a  book  eminently  good  for  those  who  are 
in  difficult  places  while  doing  right.  And  you 
know  you  may  before  long  come  into  strait 
places  while  doing  the  will  of  God.  Who 
knows  but  you  may  be  cast  into  prison  for 
obeying  the  law  of  Christ  ?  I  think  some  of 
you  will  be  if  our  Government  goes  on  in  its 
present  way  of  endeavoring  to  crush  those  who 
help  the  bondman  to  the  liberty  to  which  he  is 
entitled. 

Be  ready  for  such  an  event.  Make  ready 
for  it  by  acting  as  did  the  Irish  boy,  who  fear 
ing  that  the  Catholic  priest  would  take  his 
Bible  from  him,  fell  to  committing  it  to  memory, 
so  that  when  the  priest  did  seize  and  burn  the 
book,  he  was  able  to  say,  "  There  is  one  thing 
you  can't  burn,  and  that 's  them  ten  chapters 
I  've  got  laid  up  in  my  heart" 

Do  you  lay  up  the  word  of  God  in  your 
hearts,  and  in  whatever  strait  you  may  be, 
even  if  you  are  cast  into  prison  for  obeying  the 
law  of  God,  you  will  enjoy  constant  comfort 
and  peace. 

After  a  beautiful  address  from  Mr.  PLUMB 
and  a  fitting  response  from  Prof.  ELLIS,  the 
procession  formed  and  marched  to  the  depot  on 
their  homeward  way,  which  we  trust  they  pur 
sued  without  accident.  What  a  scene  ! 

THE   FINALE. 

Slowly  the  weeks  trode  by,  till  the  close  of 
the  month  of  June.  The  imprisoned  Rescuers 
had  quietly  settled  themselves  each  in  his  cell, 
having  "  labored,"  now  to  "  wait "  for  the 
hour  of  honorable  release.  Systematic  appeals 
had  been  made  to  the  public  in  behalf  of  their 


262 


HISTORY   OF   THE 


•wives  and  little  ones,  and  prompt  and  heart- 
cheering  responses  had  begun  to  come  back. 
Every  hope  of  speedy  release  having  failed, 
each  sent  for  the  implements  of  his  accustomed 
labor,  and  the  prison  became  a  workshop.  One 
made  shoes,  another  harness,  another  cabinet- 
ware,  two  set  type,  two  edited,  and  others  read 
Latin,  Greek,  and  Metaphysics,  that  they  might 
not  fall  behind  class  mates  in  college.  A  copy 
of  "  The  Rescuer,"  dated  July  4th,  1859,  lies 
now  before  us.  Collectors  for  antiquarian  libra 
ries  seldom  exhume  choicer  niorceaux.  The 
first  page  announces  that :  — 

"  THE  RESCUER  will  be  published  at  the 
Cuyahoga  County  Jail,  every  alternate  Mon 
day,  by  the  Political  Prisoners  there  confined. 
Five  thousand  copies  of  the  first  number  will 
be  issued.  Price  3  cents  per  copy." 

From  the  editorial  columns  we  clip  the 
following :  — • 

THE   RESCUER — now  IT   WAS   PRINTED. 

— After  the  "  political  prisoners  "  had  remained 
in  jail  for  seventy-five  days,  they  began  to  find 
themselves  possessed  of  "  thoughts  that  breathed 
and  words  that  burned."  We  not  only  wished 
to  utter  them,  but  we  wished  to  print  them. 
Could  the  thing  be  done  ?  We  looked  around 
for  printers,  and  found  among  the  "  prisoners  " 
two  rusty  and  dilapidated  "  typos "  one  of 
whom  had  not  handled  a  "  stick "  for  fifteen 
years.  Would  the  Sheriff  allow  us  a  corner 
of  the  jail  for  a  printing-office  ?  We  asked 
him.  Generous  as  ever,  he  replied  —  "  Cer 
tainly,  and  I'll  help  you  too,  if  I  can."  "O 
where  shall  TYPE  be  found  ?  "  we  next  inquired. 
The  generous  purchasers  of  our  old  printing- 
office  responded  by  lending  us  a  font  of  Small 
Pica,  and  the  liberal  Publisher  of  the  Cleve 
land  Daily  Leader  added  more,  with  other 
things.  For  a  "  plane "  we  used  a  carpen 
ter's  with  the  irons  knocked  out.  A  po 
liceman's  club  answered  for  a  "mallet,"  in 
"  taking  proof,"  and  for  other  purposes,  we 
could  select  a  pounding  instrument  from  a  large 
pile  of  shackles  which  lay  at  our  feet.  A  fel 
low-prisoner  supplied  us  with  "  side-sticks," 
"  quoins "  and  "  reglet,"  made  from  a  white- 
wood  board.  Another  prisoner  sawed  up  a 
fence  board  to  make  a  "  rack."  (Quite  like  a 
"felon"  that,  but  we  must  settle  it  with  the 
Commissioners.)  For  a  "shooting-stick"  — 
not  the  dangerous  kind  which  we  have  under 
stood  "  rescuers  "  sometimes  use,  but  a  simpler 
instrument  —  we  hewed  out  a  piece  of  stave, 
and  the  door-stone  answered  for  a  "table." 
Thus  furnished,  and  with  the  ample  space  of 
just  five  feet  by  ten  for  a  printing-office  we 
proceed  to  establish  the  "  Rescuer."  If  we  la 
bor  under  difficulties,  it  is  but  appropriate,  for 
«'  rescuers  "  always  do.  We  forgot  to  express 


regret  that  we  could  not  procure  italics.  Many 
were  needed.  We  must  ask  our  readers  to 
supply  the  emphasis  according  to  taste. 

From  the  advertising  columns,  these  : — 

PRINTERS    AND     BOOKSELLERS! 
FITCH  &  BUSHNELL 

Are  not  in  partnership  and  never  were  ;  but  as 
they  agree  so  perfectly  as  to  what  should  be 
done  with  fugitives  and  fugitive  slave  laws,  they 
are  sure  they  can  still  do  business  together. 
They  were  lately  removed  by  Marshal  Johnson, 
from  Oberlin,  O.,  where  they  had  been  long 
engaged  in  the  above  business,  and  have  estab 
lished  themselves  in  the  front  hall  of  Cleveland 
Jail,  where  the  "  Rescuer  "  is  published  every 
alternate  week.  Having  been  successful  in  se 
curing  a  large  share  of  government  attention,  we 
expect,  presently,  to  be  'able  to  do  a  good  deal  of 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING,  for  which  we  have  no 
doubt  we  shall  get  our  pay.  Indeed,  one  of  us 
has  already  been  paid  in  advance. 

In  our  jail  Bookstore  will  be  found  valuable 
works.  Constantly  on  hand,  as  soon  as  pub 
lished,  a  Narrative  of  the  Oberlin  Rescue  Trials, 
250  pp.,  full  of  curiosities. 

At  their  branch  establishment  in  Oberlin, 
they  still  keep  a  choice  assortment  of  Anti- 
Slavery  Literature,  which  they  specially  recom 
mend  to  "  Union  Savers  "  as  worthy  their  no 
tice.  Bibles  and  Testaments  will  be  sold  to 
Administration  Democrats  strictly  at  cost ;  and 
to  Lower  Law  men  generally  at  very  low  rates. 
Hoping  to  check  the  progress  of  barbarism  as 
well  as  of  slave-catchers,  they  have  filled  their 
shelves  with  many  good  books,  which  are  real 
"  Helpers."  Hallam's  Middle  Ages  is  highly 
recommended  as  a  valuable  aid  in  settling  the 
dispute  as  to  whether  Democratic  America  has 
yet  advanced  in  civilization,  beyond  the  Medie 
val  Period.  The  attention  of  United  States 
Judges,  District- Attorneys,  and  others,  is  espec 
ially  called  to  a  neat  little  Manual  which  they 
offer,  containing  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  Declaration  of  Independence,  Acts_  of 
Congress  on  Slavery,  including  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  and  arguments  showing  the  Consti 
tution  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  that  negroes 
are  "  persons  "  now  and  "  things  "  then,  just  as 
shall  suit. 

Their  motto  is, 

"  Consider  well  each  deed  you  mean  to  do ; 
But,  ouce  resolved,  with  earnest  zeal  pursue*" 


UPHOLSTERERS    AND    MATTRESS    MAKERS. 

Henry  Evans  §•  Brother  (late  of  Oberlin,  O.), 
have  removed  to  the  shed  one  door  west  of  J. 
Scott's  Saddle  and  Harness-shop.  All  persons 
who  would  secure  a  visit  from 

"  Tired  Nature's  sweet  restorer,  balmy  sleep," 
will  please  call  and  examine  their  work. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


263 


You  can  rest  on  their  beds,  if  you  can  rest 
anywhere.  Government  officials  need  not  ap- 
ply. 

HOG-SKIN   SADDLE  AND   HARNESS-MAKING. 

John  H.  Scott,  late  of  Oberlin,  has  opened  a 
shop  under  the  shed  in  the  Jail  Yard,  in  front 
of  Wightman's  Castle,  Cleveland.  Mr.  Scott 
assures  the  public  that  hereafter  he  shall  use 
hides  of  his  own  tanning,  and  will  warrant  his 
work  to  be  thoroughly  done. 

N.  B.  Dour  collars  of  all  sizes  made  to  order 


BOOT   AND   SHOE    SHOP. 

James  Bartlett,  late  of  Royce's  extensive  Man 
ufactory,  Oberlin,  Ohio,  has  opened  a  shop  in 
cell  No.  3,  up  stairs,  Cuyahoga  County  Jail, 
where  he  will  be  happy  to  meet  his  patrons. 

Mr.  B.  feels  confident  that  he  can  be  of  great 
service  to  those  who,  from  constant  gyrations  in 
the  dirt,  have  damaged  their  soles. 

Lower  Law  Ministers,  Hunkers,  and  Cat-Footed 
Politicians  of  all  parties  are  particularly  invited 
to  call. 

P.  S.  Hides  taken  in  exchange  for  work. 
Dark  copper-color  greatly  preferred. 

For  data  which  enable  us  to  furnish  a  com 
plete  account  of  the  sudden  interruption  of 
these  new  business  enterprises,  we  are  in 
debted  to  the  special  kindness  of  Hon.  Ralph 
Plumb. 

Marshal  Johnson  and  District- Attorney  Bel- 
den  had  been  to  Washington  for  counsel,  and 
returning,  had  declared  that  a  Court  term  of 
ninety  days  continuance  was  to  be  commenced 
on  the  twelfth  of  July,  and  that  all  necessary 
funds  would  be  at  their  command;  that  the 
Oberlinites  were  every  one  to  be  tried,  found 
guilty,  and  sentenced  to  the  end  of  the  law. 

Meantime,  the  Kentuckians,  Jennings,  Mitch 
ell,  Cochran,  and  Bacon,  arrived,  and  the  admin 
istration  press  boasted  largely  that  the  chivalry 
were  "  on  hand,  and  ready  to  face  the  music  like 
men."  This  was  some  ten  days  before  the  trials 
•were  to  commence  at  Elyria. 

But  it  soon  transpired  that  Judge  McLean 
had  issued  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  behalf  of 
Jennings,  Mitchell,  Lowe,  and  Davis,  which 
Marshal  Johnson  had  in  his  pocket  and  pro 
posed  to  serve  upon  the  Sheriff  of  Lorain 
county,  so  soon  as  their  bail  should  technically  sur 
render  the  defendants  into  custody.  How  these 
gentlemen  could  make  the  necessary  oath  to  en 
title  them  to  this  writ,  alleging  that  they  were 
"  illegally  restrained  of  their  liberty ?  etc.,  while 


altogether  at  large,  is  a  query  which  may  possi 
bly  suggest  itself  to  the  fastidious,  but  which 
we  will  not  detain  the  reader  to  consider. 

This  writ  was  served  upon  Sheriff  Burr,  al 
though  the  persons  named  in  it  were  not  in  his 
custody.  He  returned  it  indorsed  according 
to  fact,  and  the  return  was  accepted. 

While  this  farce  was  being  enacted,  the  Ken 
tuckians  and  their  accomplices,  frightened  to 
the  last  degree  at  so  near  a  prospect  of  justice, 
were  actively  engaged  by  their  counsel,  Hon. 
R.  H.  Stanton,  of  Kentucky,  in  getting  the 
U.  S.  Government  to  propose  terms  of  capitula 
tion  of  some  sort,  whereby  they  might  parry,  if 
not  avert,  the  impending  blow. 

They  complained  of  Belden  ;  said  he  had  be 
trayed  them,  had  induced  them  to  give  them 
selves  up  by  promising  habeas  corpus  relief; 
and  now  that  it  had  failed,  there  was  nothing 
but  the  penitentiary  in  prospect. 

Belden  was  inexorable.  He  had  sworn  to 
put  Oberlin  "  through,"  and  was  purposed  to 
do  it,  cost  what  it  might.  It  is  said  that  Mr. 
Stanton  then  told  him  that  he  must  make  terms 
with  the  Lorain  officers,  or,  when  he  wanted  his 
Kentucky  witnesses,  the  subpoenas  would  infal 
libly  be  returned  "  non  est  inventus."  The  fox 
was  fast  in  his  own  trap,  and  there  was  no  al 
ternative  but  to  "  show  the  linen."  With  the 
best  grace  possible,  therefore,  terms  were  soon 
proposed  to  Hon.  D.  K.  Cartter,  associate  coun 
sel  for  the  Lorain  prosecution,  which  were  as 
follows:  — The  United  States  were  to  enter 
nolle  proscqui  in  all  of  the  Rescue  cases  at 
once ;  and  upon  this  condition  the  suits  against 
Jennings,  Mitchell,  Lowe,  and  Davis  at  Elyria, 
were  to  be  dismissed.  On  due  consideration, 
the  Lorain  authorities  generously  acceded  to 
these  terms,  and  so  ended  "  The  First  Siege  of 
Oberlin." 

These  arrangements  were  concluded  on  the 
6th  of  July,  and  Sheriff  Wightman  was  forth 
with  ordered  to  discharge  his  prisoners. 

THE  RESCUER'S  RESOLVES. 

At  a  full  meeting  of  the  "  Oberlin  Rescue 
Company,"  held  in  Cuyahoga  County  Jail  im 
mediately  after  their  discharge  from  custody,  it 
was  unanimously 

Resolved,  That  as  we  take  leave  of  the  prison 
in  which  we  have  been  confined  for  the  last 
three  months,  we  cannot  refuse  to  ourselves  the 
privilege  of  giving  public  expression  of  our  grat 
itude  to  God,  who  has  been  our  constant  keep 
er,  and  who,  as  we  have  passed  through  sore 


264 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


difficulties  and  trials,  has  well  fulfilled  the  prom 
ise,  "  as  thy  day  so  shall  thy  strength  be." 

We  also  return  thanks  to  Sheriff"  WIGHTMAN, 
and  Jailor  SMITH  and  family,  whose  kindness  has 
greatly  mitigated  our  troubles ;  and  to  the  At 
torneys  who  have  nobly  defended  our  cause ; 
to  the  friends,  far  and  near,  who  by  prayer  and 
act  have  remembered  us,  and  to  that  portion  of 
the  Press  which  has  given  us  constant  and  val 
uable  aid. 

Resolved,  That  after  all  the  pains  and  penal 
ties  inflicted  upon  us  by  Government  Offi 
cials  in  the  attempt  to  enforce  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty  to  say, 
that  our  hatred  and  opposition  to  that  unjust 
and  unconstitutional  law  are  more  intense  than 
ever  before. 

No  fine  or  imprisonment  however  enforced 
by  whatever  Court,  can  induce  us  to  yield  it 
obedience.  We  will  hereafter,  as  we  have 
heretofore,  help  the  panting  fugitive  to  escape 
from  those  who  would  enslave  him,  whatever 
may  be  the  authority  under  which  they  may 
act. 

Resolved,  That,  in  our  opinion,  when  duties 
enjoined  by  the  Word  of  God  and  illustrated 
in  the  example  of  Christ  are  punished  in  our 
country  as  crimes,  it  becomes  all  loyal  citizens 
to  ask  themselves  whether  they  have  not  lost  the 
substance  of  their  liberties,  and  whether  they 
should  not  use  instant  and  earnest  endeavors  to 
recover  the  rights  which  they  have  lost. 

Resolved,  That,  for  the  sake  of  Liberty,  Jus 
tice,  and  Right,  we  rejoice  that  the  recent  decis 
ion  of  our  Supreme  Court,  affirming  the  consti 
tutionality  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  has  al 
ready  met  with  emphatic  public  rebuke,  and 
that  we  exhort  the  people  of  Ohio  to  protest 
against  that  decision  until,  by  a  reversal  of  it, 
the  lost  dignity  and  sovereignty  of  our  noble 
Commonwealth  shall  be  restored  to  her. 

Resolved,  That  we  furnish  a  copy  of  the 
above  resolutions  to  the  Daily  Morning  Leader 
for  publication.  J.  M.  FITCH,  Chairman. 

S.  M.  BUSHNELL,  Secretary. 

CUYAHOGA  Co.  JAIL, 
Cleveland,  O.,  July  6,  1859. 

CLOSING    SCENE   AT   THE   JAIL. 

Just  as  the  Rescuers  were  leaving  for  their 
homes,  they  stepped  into  the  parlor  of  the  jail, 
where  were  present  their  Attorneys,  Messrs.  R. 
P.  SPALDING,  A.  G.  RIDDLE,  F/T.  BACKUS, 
S.  O.  GHISWOLD,  Sheriff  D.  L.  WIGHTMAN, 
Jailor  J.  B.  SMITH,  and  H.  R.  SMITH,  Esq.,  who 
had  rendered  the  Rescuers  repeated  services, 
with  their  wives,  and  numerous  friends,  when 
Mr.  PLUMB,  in  behalf  of  the  Prisoners,  presented 
the  Ladies  for  their  husbands,  each  a  beautiful 
Silver  Napkin  Ring,  Fork  and  Spoon,  engraved 
with  the  initials  of  their  husbands,  and  "  From 
Rescuers  ;  Matthew  25  :  36." 

Mr.  PLUMB,  in  a  brief  and  happy  vein,  said, 
that  the  prisoners  though  poor  were  desirous  of 


presenting  to  them  a  small  remembrancer,  in 
token  of  the  high  regard  in  which  they  held 
them,  and  in  acknowledgment  of  the  valuable 
services  they  had  rendered  them  during  their 
imprisonment.  To  their  counsel  for  legal  aid, 
and  to  the  others  for  services  scarcely  less  valu 
able.  And  he  wished  to  request  the  ladies  to 
place  the  gift  before  their  husbands,  at  meals, 
three  times  a  day  while  they  lived,  that  they 
might  at  such  times,  when  surrounded  by  their 
families  and  those  dear  to  them,  when  noble  and 
generous  feelings  were  sure  to  come,  look  upon 
the  memento,  and  remember  the  exciting 
scenes  through  which  they  had  just  passed ;  — 
and  that  although  they  were  intended  for  their 
husbands,  like  all  other  dear  things  they  would 
be  in  the  keeping  of  the  Ladies. 

Judge  SPALDING  then  replied  in  behalf  of 
the  Ladies  and  their  husbands,  in  a  few  elo 
quent  and  appropriate  remarks. 

He  said,  that  it  was  certainly  very  cheering  to 
them  to  know  that  they  had  been  of  service  to 
the  prisoners — that  they  had  done  what  they 
had,  without  any  expectation  or  desire  of  re 
muneration —  but  for  the  cause  in  which  the 
Rescuers  had  suffered — that  when  first  spoken 
to  about  defending  them,  he  had  said  he  neither 
asked  nor  would  take  pay  for  services  in  the 
case. 

Judge  S.  said  the  memento  so  kindly  pre 
sented  would  be  highly  prized,  and  left  as  a 
legacy  to  their  children.  He  hoped  that  if  ever 
they  got  into  jail  again  it  would  be  for  no  other 
cause  than  delivering  the  oppressed  from  the 
oppressor. 

Prof.  PECK  remarked  that  a  portion  of  the 
first  hour  in  jail  had  been  spent  in  imploring 
the  blessing  of  God,  and  it  would  be  consonant 
with  their  feelings  to  spend  the  last  moments  in 
thanksgiving  to  the  Protector  and  Preserver  of 
themselves  and  families,  and  the  Good  Deliverer 
who  had  been  their  hope  and  support  during 
the  many  days  and  nights  of  their  confinement. 
A  fervent  prayer  by  Prof.  P.  closed  the  affect 
ing  scene,  one  long  to  be  remembered. 

From  the  Morning  Leader,  of  July  7th,  we 
clip  the  following  :  — 

THE  RELEASE  OF  THE  OBERLIN  RESCUE 
COMPANY.  Considerable  excitement  was  cre 
ated  in  this  city  upon  the  announcement  being 
made  in  the  Leader,  that  a  proposition  had 
been  made  by  the  Kentucky  kidnappers  to  have 
mutual  nolles  entered  in  their  own  case  and  the 
case  of  the  Oberlin  Rescuers.  The  consequence 
was  the  most  intense  anxiety  among  men,  both 
Black  Republicans  and  Yellow  Democrats,  to 
learn  the  upshot  of  the  whole  matter.  The 
negotiations  between  Judge  Belden  and  the 
Kidnappers  on  one  side,  and  the  authorities  of 
Lorain  on  the  other  (the  Oberlinites  refusing 
to  be  parties),  were  consummated  yesterday  in 
the  forenoon,  when  Marshal  Johnson  called  at 
the  jail  and  announced  to  the  Rescue  prisoners 
that  they  were  free. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


265 


The  news  spread  rapidly  that  the  Govern 
ment  officials  had  caved.  Hundreds  immedi 
ately  called  on  the  company,  to  tender  their 
congratulations  at  this  signal  triumph  of  the 
"  Higher  Lawitcs,"  as  the  Plain  Dealer  is 
pleased  to  call  them.  In  the  afternoon,  about 
5  o'clock,  a  hundred  guns  were  fired,  and  some 
several  hundred  of  our  citizens  gathered  at  the 
jail  to  escort  the  Rescuers  to  the  depot.  At 
half  past  five,  the  whole  company,  headed  by 
Hecker's  Band,  marched  two  and  two  to  the 
depot,  through  Superior  and  Water  streets,  the 
Band  playing  "Hail  Columbia,"  "  Hail  to  the 
Chief,"  "  Yankee  Doodle,"  etc.  On  arriving 
at  the  depot,  three  stentorian  cheers  were  given 
•with  a  good-will  for  the  Rescuers,  when  Judge 
Bray  ton,  of  Newburgh,  was  called  upon  for  a 
speech,  which  he  gave  in  his  vivid  and  eloquent 
style.  After  this,  the  company  bid  farewell  to 
their  friends,  and  took  their  seats  in  the  cars, 
and  the  train  started,  amidst  the  hurrahs  of  the 
people,  the  Band  playing  that  peculiarly  appro 
priate  air  for  the  occasion,  "  Home,  Sweet 
Home."  Thus  has  ended  the  great  Oberlin 
Rescue  Case.  It  was  the  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  public  in  general,  and  of  the  Plain 
Dealer  in  particular,  that  it  was  a  triumph,  not 
a  mere  triumph,  but  a  decided  triumph,  for  the 
Rescuers.  The  prosecutor,  kidnappers,  Judge, 
"  eminent  counsel  from  Kentucky,"  and  the 
Yellow  Democracy  and  all,  displayed  an  im 
mense  white  feather. 

The  people  of  Oberlin  were  making  prepa 
rations  to  receive  the  Rescuers  yesterday  af 
ternoon.  We  doubt  not  that  the  returned 
husbands,  fathers,  brothers,  and  sons  will  have 
received  such  a  welcome  as  the  warm-hearted 
people  of  Oberlin  know  how  to  give. 

The  following  account  of  the  reception  at 
Oberlin,  was  prepared  and  furnished  to  the 
Leader  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Fitch,  whose  name  by  this 
time  is  in  the  heart  of  the  reader.  It  was  no 
sooner  published  than  by  its  author  placed  at 
the  writer's  disposal.  If  passages  in  it  seem 
•warm,  the  critic  has  only  to  imagine  himself  in 
the  author's  place.  After  eighty-five  days'  im 
prisonment,  to  be  thus  welcomed  HOME  might 
not  impossibly  affect  the  blood  of  more  phleg 
matic  temperaments. 

THE  OBERLIN  RESCUERS  AT  HOME. 

ENTHUSIASTIC   RECEPTION. 

SPEECHES    AND    SPIRIT    OF    THE    JOYOUS 
OCCASION. 

OBERLIN   NOT   "SUBDUED." 

OBERLIN,  July  7,  1S59. 

EDITOR  LEADER,  —  You  left  the  "Polit 
ical  Prisoners "  at  the  Depot,  and  gave  them 
your  hearty  congratulation  as  they  pursued 
their  way  "home  again,"  amid  the  roar  of 

34 


cannon,  the  peals  of  martial  music,  and  the 
echoing  shouts  which  came  from  a  multitude 
of  earnest  friends  of  freedom.  You  heard 
Judge  Brayton's  eloquent  speech  in  conrjratu- 
lation  of  the  "  prisoners,"  their  friends  and  the 
nation ;  and  then  "  you  missed  it "  that  you 
turned  again  to  your  labor  and  your  sanctum. 
If  you  ever  get  an  adequate  idea  of  the  glo 
rious  reception  which  awaited  these  humble 
and  persecuted,  but  now  famous,  friends  of 
freedom  on  their  arrival  at  Oberlin  —  des 
pised,  persecuted  Oberlin  —  you  will  regret  to 
your  dying  day  that  you  had  not  "  been  there 
to  see." 

The  wives  of  Peck,  Plumb,  Fitch,  and  Wat 
son,  met  the  company  at  Grafton,  and  here 
arose  the  first  shout  that  was,  in  twenty  min 
utes  more,  to  be  taken  up  and  borne  along  as 
"  the  sound  of  many  waters  and  the  roar  of 
mighty  thunderings."  If  the  conquerors  of  the 
old  world  have,  at  any  time,  had  a  more 
numerous  reception,  not  one  of  them  ever  had 
a  reception  half  so  hearty  as  greeted  these 
"  saints  and  sub-saints "  on  their  arrival  at 
their  beloved  Oberlin.  The  entire  town  was 
out  to  greet  them.  A  sea  of  heads  could  be 
seen  extending  for  a  long  distance  on  both 
sides  of  the  track.  Youth  and  beauty  vied 
with  men  of  venerable  age  in  their  endeavors  to 
catch  a  glimpse  of  these  but  recently  con 
temptible,  these  reviled  and  abused  men ;  and 
when  they  alighted  from  the  cars,  the  heavens 
rang  again  with  the  united  and  prolonged 
huzzas  of  nearly  three  thousand  persons,  who, 
though  styled  "fanatics,"  were  not  a  whit 
behind  the  brightest  ornaments  of  our  country, 
in  intelligence,  purity,  patriotism,  and  every 
excellence  of  which  a  nation  should  be  proud. 
Joy  beamed  in  every  eye.  Exultation  marked 
every  movement,  and  enthusiasm  burst  from 
every  lip.  But  one  discordant  clement,  and 
that  a  very  little  one,  could  be  detected  in  that 
vast  throng.  E.  F.  Munson,  the  Oberlin  Post 
master  —  the  man  whose  head  was  but  recently 
as  good  as  off,  and  who  stuck  it  on  again  by 
the  dirty  work  which  he  was  able  to  do  for  the 
Government  and  the  marauders  who  have  lately 
disturbed  the  quiet  of  our  peaceful  town, — 
E.  F.  Munson  stood  motionless,  grim,  dark  and 
dreary,  like  a  bald  eagle  on  a  rock,  or  a  stork 
on  a  seashore.  "  Poor  fool,"  said  I,  "  let  him 
eat  the  fruit  of  his  own  doings,  and  \>Q  filled 
with  his  own  devices." 

The  eloquent  Prof.  Monroe  was  called  out, 
and  from  the  platform  pronounced  the  following 
thrilling  speech  in  welcome  of  the  prisoners :  — 

PROF.  MONROE'S  SPEECH  AT  THE  CARS. 

MY  FRIENDS,  —  In  behalf  of  this  vast  as 
sembly,  I  am  requested  to  express,  in  a  word, 
the  unqualified  satisfaction,  the  heartfelt  joy 
which  we  feel,  on  welcoming  vou  once  more 
to  the  bosom  of  this  community  and  to  your 
homes.  From  that  sad  day  when  you  left  us 
to  the  present  time,  we  have  never,  for  a 


266 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


moment,  ceased  longing  for  the  sight  of  your 
faces  among  us,  whenever  you  could  return 
consistently  with  duty;  and  to-night  we  are 
glad,  from  the  very  bottom  of  our  hearts,  that 
that  time  has  come.  We  rejoice,  not  only 
because  you  have  come  back  to  us,  but  also 
because  you  have  come  without  the  shadow  of 
a  stain  upon  that  strict  integrity  which  it  is  the 
duty  and  the  privilege  of  a  Christian  anti- 
slavery  man  to  cherish.  You  have  made  no 
compromises  with  slavery.  There  has  been  no 
bowing  down  of  the  body,  no  bending  of  the 
knee.  Erect,  as  God  made  you,  you  went 
into  prison ;  erect,  as  God  made  you,  you  have 
come  out  of  prison.  We  come,  then,  once 
more,  to  Oberlin.  In  behalf  of  this  assembly, 
in  behalf  of  Oberlin,  in  behalf  of  Lorain  county, 
welcome  !  thrice  welcome  !  friends  of  Liberty ! 

The  procession  then  formed,  with  Father 
Keep  and  Father  Gillett  (Matthew  Johnson 
will  remember  him)  in  advance,  and  the  vast 
throng,  with  banners  flying,  moved  to  the  stir 
ring  music  of  the  Oberlin  Band,  towards  the 
great  church.  As  the  "  prisoners  "  marched  up 
the  path  towards  the  noble  edifice,  the  fire  com 
panies,  dressed  in  uniform,  opened  to  right  and 
left,  and  with  heads  uncovered,  received  the 
"  llescuers  "  with  a  right  hearty  greeting.  The 
vast  building  was  in  a  moment  crowded  to  its 
utmost  capacity.  Scarcely  less  than  three  thou 
sand  persons  were  crowded  within  its  walls.  .Here 
was  such  a  scene  for  a  painter  as  I  cannot  now 
describe.  Two  thousand  in  this  great  audience 
were  men  and  women  in  the  freshness,  the 
beauty,  and  the  vigor  of  youth.  It  was  a  grand 
and  cheering  sight.  As  the  prisoners  walked 
up  the  aisle,  each  was  presented  by  some  fair 
hand  with  a  beautiful  wreath,  and  bouquets  and 
flowers  danced  and  sparkled  in  all  directions. 
The  pulpit  was  elegantly  decorated,  and  all  the 
"  llescuers,"  with  many  of  their  friends,  were 
seated  on  the  rostrum.  The  venerable  Father 
Gillett,  the  kind-hearted  but  firm  and  manly 
Sheriff  Wightman,  and  the  genial  and  gener 
ous  H.  K  Smith,  our  constant  friend,  were 
among  those  who  occupied  the  stand.  The 
great  organ  opened  with  the  most  enlivening 
strains,  and  a  glorious  choir  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  choice  singers  poured  forth  a  flood 
of  song  which  rolled  over  the  vast  congregation 
and  away  through  the  town  its  waves  "of  "heav 
enly  melody. 

The  venerable  Father  Keep  (may  he  live 
forever)  took  the  chair  at  precisely  eight 
o'clock. 

Father  Keep  opened  the  exercises  by  an  im 
pressive  prayer  to  that  God  who  will  "  cause 
the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him,"  and  then  ad 
dressed  the  meeting  in  the  following  impressive 
•words :  — 

FATHER  KEEP'S  SPEECH. 

Christian  Friends  and  Fellow- Citizens  :  — 

I  devoutly  congratulate  you  that  our  breth 
ren,  heroic  men,  persecuted  for  righteousness' 


sake,  have  now  returned  to  our  bosoms.  On 
their  countenances  we,  indeed,  trace  indications 
of  a  severe  mental  conflict ;  but,  likewise,  the 
divine  favor  in  their  personal  vigor  and  health, 
—  and  in  the  flash  of  their  eye,  the  spirit  and 
purpose  of  men  whom,  in  such  a  warfare,  ty 
rants  cannot  subdue.  In  your  behalf  I  tender 
them  a  cordial  and  joyous  welcome,  and  in  your 
name  I  assure  them  that  they  are  now  especially 
endeared  to  us  all. 

But,  beloved  sufferers,  this  welcome  is  not 
intended  to  cover  the  fact  that  you  have  come 
to  us  "jail-birds."  You  must  ever  bear  this  ap 
pellation.  It,  however,  comforts  us,  and  it  must 
cheer  you  to  know  that  you  have  earned  the 
title  after  the  example  of  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles,  having  been  imprisoned  for  the  act 
of  witnessing  for  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

In  your  persons,  at  this  joyous  interview,  we 
thus  publicly  acknowledge  the  gift  of  God  in 
answer  to  prayer.  In  all  your  confinement, 
our  sympathies  for  you  have  been  a  deep  flow 
ing  current.  We  have  felt  called  of  God  to 
the  special  mission  of  prayer  in  your  behalf. 
In  the  daily  reports  of  your  persistency  in  the 
" Eight"  we  have  received  the  rich,  sustaining 
answer  to  our  prayer.  We  have  been  also 
strengthened  and  comforted  to  know  that  this 
sympathy  is  next  to  universal  in  the  country. 
The  press  has  given  it  voice.  Its  breath,  to 
you  in  prison,  to  us  in  our  watchings,  has  dis 
coursed  music  along  the  telegraph  wires. 

We  have  felt  honored  that  you  have  so  faith 
fully  represented  the  moral  sentiment  of  this 
community,  and  of  our  fondly  cherished  Col 
lege.  Your  firmness  in  this  crisis,  has  sharply 
admonished  us  for  our  sluggishness  in  the  pres 
ent  conflict  for  Liberty,  and  what  is  more,  for 
our  lack  of  moral  courage ;  and  still  more,  the 
obtuseness  of  moral  sense  in  men  who  coun 
selled  compromise. 

In  your  imprisonment  you  have  nobly  repre 
sented  a  great  principle.  The  Divine  Law  su 
preme,  everywhere ;  human  enactments  subor 
dinate.  Thus  you  have  stood  before  the  coun 
try  the  intelligent,  sagacious,  unflinching  friends 
of  human  freedom. 

Your  testimony  will  live,  a  permanent  record 
in  history,  —  a  memorial  to  preserve  your  names 
to  the  undying  recognition  of  an  approving 
posterity. 

We  thank  you  for  your  wisdom  and  firmness 
in  the  rejection  of  all  compromise  between 
right  and  wrong.  In  this  whole  movement, 
your  instructive  and  impressive  example  is  be 
fore  the  country  as  a  model  for  Church  and  for 
State.  God  has  given  you  the  spirit  and  the 
courage  for  the  crisis.  Your  reward  is  before 
you,  and  sure. 

Let  Politicians,  Statesmen,  and  Christians, 
but  follow  this  example,  and  our  own  Ohio 
shall  be  free,  —  personal  rights  will  be  held  as 
sacred,  and  be  sustained.  Our  country  shall  be 
free  ! 

The  Hon.  Ralph  Plumb  was  next  called  out. 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


267 


He  came  forward  amid  immense  and  prolonged 
cheering,  and  said  :  — 

HON.  RALPH  PLUMB'S  SPEECH. 

"What  a  scene  here  greets  the  eye  !  This  vast 
multitude,  —  the  whole  population  almost  of 
this  usually  quiet  village,  filling  every  niche  of 
this  vast  edifice  with  joyous  countenances  and 
glad  hearts,  are  before  us  ;  and  for  what  do  they 
come  ? 

They  come  to  welcome  us  their  neighbors,  — 
their  husbands,  fathers,  and  brothers,  back  to 
this  community,  —  to  our  dear  families  and  our 
sweet  homes !  They  come,  too,  to  learn  not 
only  that  we,  their  representatives,  have  been 
released  from  the  prison-walls  that  for  eighty- 
five  days  have  confined  us,  but  to  learn  also 
whether  this  enlargement,  so  valuable  to  us  and 
to  them,  has  been  purchased  at  the  cost  of  one 
iota  of  principle,  or  one  grain  of  self-respect. 

Fellow-citizens,  it  gives  me  great  pleasure  to 
assure  you  that  the  band  of  Rescuers  whom  you 
greet  stand  before  you  to-night,  with  your 
selves  breathing  the  free  air  once  more  of  free 
Oberlin,  without  having  in  the  least  degree  com 
promised  themselves  or  you. 

Nay,  permit  me  to  go  farther  and  say,  that 
the  officers  of  Lorain  county,  to  whom  the  gov 
ernment  pursuers  proposed  the  entering  of 
nolles  in  the  cases,  have  throughout  maintained 
the  honor  and  the  dignity  of  Lorain,  so  that  we 
and  they  stand  before  you  without  having  yield 
ed  dishonorably  to  any  exaction  of  those  who 
sought  to  humble  us,  and  destroy  the  principle 
so  clearly  apprehended  by  your  intellects,  and 
so  warmly  cherished  in  your  hearts.  But  I  do 
not  propose  to  make  a  speech  to  you  now ;  but 
to  give  the  key-note  to  your  rejoicings  by  dem 
onstrating  what  I  have  already  stated,  and  for 
that  purpose  ask  your  permission  to  read  what 
will  be  received  by  you  all  as  sufficient  proof, 
in  the  editorial  of  the  Cleveland  Daily  Plain 
Dealer  of  this  evening,  which  is  as  follows  : — 

From  the  Plain  Dealer,  July  6. 

OBERLIN    CASE'S   NOLLED —  HIGHER   LAW 
TRIUMPHANT. 

We  learn  with  astonishment  that  the  United 
States  District- Attorney  has  nolled  the  indict 
ments  against  the  Oberlin  Rescuers  now  in  jail, 
on  condition  that  the  Oberlinites  will  nolle  the 
indictments  against  the  Kentucky  witnesses 
who  were  under  arrest  on  a  trumped  up  charge 
of  kidnapping.  This  arrangement,  we  under 
stand,  has  been  made  at  the  solicitation  of  the 
four  Kentucky  gentlemen,  who,  while  under  re 
cognizance  of  the  United  States  Court  to  ap 
pear  here  and  testify  in  these  Rescue  cases, 
were  indicted  by  an  Oberlin  Lorain  jury,  and 
arrested  while  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties, 
on  a  false  charge  of  kidnapping.  They  were 
thrust  into  the  Lorain  county  jail,  but  were 
subsequently  released  on  bail.  A  special  term 
of  the  Lorain  County  Court  was  to  be  held  on 


the  Gth  inst,  to  try  them,  and  a  Lorain  county 
jury  was  all  in  readiness  to  send  them  to  pur 
gatory  or  the  penitentiary,  without  any  regard 
to  Constitutions,  Courts,  or  the  laws  of  the 
land. 

An  effort  was  made  to  get  them  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  Oberlinites  by  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  issued  by  Judpe  McLean,  but  the  sheriff 
of  Lorain  hid  himself  for  several  days,  and  the 
Probate  Judge  ran  away,  to  prevent  the  bail 
from  surrendering  the  prisoners  up,  so  that  the 
writ  could  take  effect,  and  in  this  way  nullified 
the  law  and  set  at  defiance  that  "  Great  Writ 
of  Right"  which  these  same  Oberlinites  have 
resorted  to,  and  have  had  the  full  benefit  of,  on 
two  occasions,  since  these  arrests  have  been 
made. 

Finding  no  law  in  Lorain  but  the  Higher 
Law,  and  seeing  the  determination  of  the  Sher 
iff,  Judge,  and  jury  to  send  them  to  the  peni 
tentiary  any  way,  for  no  crime  under  any  hu 
man  law,  but  on  a  charge  trumped  up  on  pur 
pose  to  drive  them  out  of  the  country,  and  hav 
ing  been  kept  away  from  their  families  most  of 
the  summer,  and  away  from  their  business,  at 
great  pecuniary  expense  to  themselves,  for  the 
Government  fees  for  witnesses  do  not  pay  board 
bills,  they  proposed  to  exchange  nolles,  and 
the  District-Attorney  consented  to  it.  So  the 
Government  has  been  beaten  at  last  with  law, 
justice,  and  facts  all  on  its  side,  and  Oberlin 
with  its  rebellious  Higher  Law  creed  is  trium 
phant. 

The  precedent  is  a  bad  one.  All  these  fac- 
tionists  have  to  do  in  future,  whenever  any 
of  their  number  is  arrested  for  the  violation  of 
our  statute  law,  is  to  pay  no  regard  to  the  writs 
of  the  lower  law  courts;  but  threaten  the  wit 
nesses  with  the  terror  of  their  own  inquisition, 
and  enforce  the  penalties  of  the  higher  law. 
This  is  Mormonism,  with  Prof.  Peck  acting  the 
part  of  Brigham  Young,  and  it  will  have  to  be 
put  down,  as  Mormonism  has  been,  by  the 
strong  arm  of  military  power. 

There  will  now  be  some  unearthly  shoutings 
by  these  triumphant  myrmidons  of  Mormonism. 
Oberlin  will  blaze  in  her  new  won  glory,  and 
Te  Deums  will  be  sung  in  all  her  churches. 
There  will  be  a  great  accession  to  her  calendar 
of  saints.  Those  immortal  men,  who,  armed 
with  muskets,  mobbed  the  United  States  offi 
cials,  while  in  the  discharge  of  their  sworn  du 
ties,  will  now  be  canonized,  instead  of  cannon 
aded,  and  Saint  Peck  will  be  listed  with  Saint 
Peter,  and  as  worthy  to  hold  the  keys  of  Para 
dise. 

Mr.  Plumb  said  in  conclusion  .  — 

Fellow-citizens,  —  It  is  meet  that  your  re 
joicings  should  be  without  restraint,  for  the 
victory  has  been  complete.  [Prolonged  cheer 
ing-] 

Prof.  H.  E.  Peck  next  came  forward,  and 
was  received  with  such  a  hearty  greeting,  with 
such  enthusiastic  and  prolonged  cheering,  as  we 
never  before  witnessed  and  never  expect  to 


268 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


hear  again.  The  Professor,  after  long  -waiting 
for  the  resounding  waves  and  the  mighty  thun- 
derings  to  die  away,  addressed  the  audience  in 
the  following  eloquent  speech  :  — 

PROF.   H.   E.   PECK'S   SPEECH. 

An  event  like  this  is  surely  a  marked  occa 
sion  in  one's  life.  It  constitutes  for  him  a  stand 
point  from  which  his  mental  vision  can  take  a 
wide  reach,  both  backward  and  forward.  Since 
I  came  into  this  house  my  mind  has  reviewed,  I 
in  their  order,  various  salient  points  of  my  life. 
My  part  in  childhood  at  the  bedside  of  my  dy 
ing  mother ;  the  consecration  of  myself  in  the 
beginning  of  manhood,  to  the  service  of  God ; 
my  marriage  ;  my  reception  of  my  first-born ; 
my  parting  with  the  dear  child  as  it  died  in  my 
arms  ;  the  act  of  devotion,  when  with  my  wife 
and  children  at  my  side,  I  thanked  God  that 
John  had  been  rescued ;  my  arrest ;  my  impris 
onment  ;  the  encounter  I  had  with  disappoint 
ment  when  the  Supreme  Court  refused  our  ap 
plication  lor  discharge,  and  my  deeper  and  wo- 
ful  grief  when  our  second  plea  at  the  bar  of  the 
Supreme  Court  failed  —  all  these  momentous 
events  have  passed  in  solemn  procession  before 
me.  And  having  reviewed  them,  I  find  myself 
taking  part  in  this  wondrous  scene. 

It  seems  to  me,  my  friends,  as  if  in  naming 
to  you  the  events  I  have  set  before  you,  I  had 
suggested  in  outline,  the  history  of  my  whole 
life ;  and  as  if  that  history  naturally  divided  it 
self  into  two  parts,  one  reaching  down  to  the 
hour  when  I  thanked  God  that  John  was  free, 
and  the  other  coming  to  this  glad  moment. 
And  it  further  seems  to  me  as  if  in  these  two 
parts  of  my  life  I  had  realized  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  philosophers  that  man  has  two 
consciousnesses — his  own  proper  one  and  a 
special  one  —  and  that  he  may  leave  the  one 
for  a  time  to  dwell  in  the  other,  and  then  return 
to  his  original  one,  his  state  while  in  the  abnor 
mal  condition  seeming  to  him  when  he  has 
come  out  of  it  only  blankness  and  chaos. 
Since  last  September  I  have  been,  in  a  sort,  in 
a  state  of  special  consciousness,  so  new  has  my 
experience  been ;  but  now,  as  I  stand  in  this 
familiar  place  and  look  upon  this  sea  of  familiar 
faces,  and  read  in  their  kindling  eyes  the  sym 
pathy  with  which  every  heart  is  aglow,  my  nor 
mal  consciousness  seems  to  be  restored.  The 
will,  intelligence,  and  above  all,  the  affections 
which  I  once  exercised  again  put  themselves  in 
motion. 

I  owe  my  renewed  life  to  the  generous  greet 
ing  which  you  have  given  us.  And  now,  as  I 
turn  my  back  upon  that  special  state  from 
which  you  have  awakened  me,  I  think  I  can, 
in  a  measure,  compensate  your  kindness  by  in 
dicating  to  you  one  of  the  great  lessons  which 
I  have  been  studying  while  in  that  state.  It  is 
the  lesson  which  Christ  set  forth  in  the  words, 
"  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find 
it." 

In  the  months  of  trial  now  brought  to  a  hap 


py  close,  it  has  been  the  lot  of  myself  and  my 
associates  to  be  called  upon  to  make  in  behalf 
of  the  cause  of  God  and  humanity,  frequent 
and  practical  surrenders  of  things  dear  to  us. 
And  in  every  case  the  thing  surrendered  has 
been  more  than  restored  to  us.  We  have  of 
fered  health  and  even  life  upon  the  altar  of  du 
ty.  The  sacrifice  has  been  restored  to  us  in 
the  consciousness  we  have  had  that  our  lives 
were  being  used  to  good  purpose,  and  that  in 
the  privilege  of  looking  iniquity  "  framed  into 
aw  "  in  the  face  without  quailing  or  faltering, 
we  were  being  amply  paid  for  ®ur  self-sacrifice. 
We  have  surrendered  home  with  its  daily  com 
forts  and  constantly  renewing  endearments. 
But  home  and  kindred,  wives'  and  children, 
have  never  before  been  so  dear,  and  have 
never  before  so  stirred  our  best  affections  and 
kindled  our  tenderest  delights  as  while  we  were 
making  the  sacrifice  of  them.  We  have  given 
up  our  usual  associations,  have  separated  our 
selves  from  you  whom  we  love  so  well.  And 
yet  we  have  found,  in  our  isolation,  closer  affin 
ities,  wanner  spiritual  fellowship  than  we  ever 
kneAv  before.  Never  before,  dear  friends,  have 
i/o  u  been  so  near  and  precious  to  us  as  you 
have  been  while  we  were  consenting  to  being 
separated  from  you. 

So,  in  all  respects,  the  words  of  our  Lord 
which  I  have  recited  have  proved  to  be  true. 

Let  me  and  my  associates,  let  this  great  mul 
titude,  let  our  hundreds  of  young  people  re 
member  always,  that  he  who  is  willing  to  lose 
his  life  for  the  truth's  or  Christ's  sake  shall  surely 
find  it.  Let  no  fear  of  consequences  ever  per 
suade  any  of  us  to  draw  back  from  any  conse 
cration  which  a  good  cause  may  require. 

Before  I  take  my  seat  let  me  add,  in  such  dis 
cursive  method  as  I  may  choose  to  follow,  one 
or  two  statements  respecting  our  circumstances 
while  in  prison. 

First,  let  me  certify  to  you  that  we  have  en 
joyed  the  comforts  of  religion.  The  .spirit  of 
God  has  been  with  us  in  our  seasons  of  private 
devotion  and  social  worship.  The  Word  of  God 
has  been  both  open  and  illuminated  for  us,  and 
its  rich  promises  have  cheered  us  abundantly. 
When  tempting  enemies  have  crowded  about 
us,  the  Saviour  who  preceded  us  at  the  bar  of 
unrighteous  judgment,  has  presented  himself  to 
assure  us  that  He  who  was  for  us  was  more  than 
they  who  were  against  us,  and  in  every  dark 
hour  the  assurance  that  Jehovah  reigns  has  made 
our  hearts  rejoice. 

In  the  next  place,  let  me  gratefully  acknowl 
edge  the  fact  that  we  have  been  favored  with 
earnest  and  continued  sympathy  and  approval 
from  steadfast  friends.  If  the  tide  of  popular 
sympathy  has  seemed  at  times  to  ebb,  the  regard 
and  practical  approval  of  thoughtful,  Christian 
men,  have  risen  to  the  last  hour.  Not  a  breeze 
has  blown  from  east,  or  west,  or  north,  or  even 
south,  without  bringing  the  tidings  that  wise  and 
<*ood  men  were  taking  up  our  cause  and  remem 
bering  it  in  a  practical  way.  The  incidents  of 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


269 


the  single  hour  which  followed  the  coming  of 
our  mail  on  the  last  day  of  our  stay  in  prison, 
illustrated  the  fact  that  sympathy  for  us  was  at 
once  widely  extended  and  profound.  A  modest 
letter  from  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
residing  in  Philadelphia,  whose  family  name  is 
honored  in  the  annals  of  Christian  resistance  to 
federal  tyranny,  brought  us,  with  words  of  cheer, 
a  check  for  one  hundred  dollars.  And  while  our 
eyes  were  yet  moist  with  gratitude  for  the 
thoughtfulness  of  our  benefactor,  a  citizen  of 
Cleveland,  distinguished  for  his  years  and  his 
standing  as  a  Christian,  and  a  member  of  soci 
ety,  not  less  than  for  his  wealth,  came  in,  and 
after  handing  us  a  donation  which  exceeded  all 
but  one  of  the  many  gifts  we  had  received, 
blessed  us  for  what  we  had  done,  and  assured 
us  that  God  had  made  us  the  ministers  of 
abundant  good.  And  to  prove  how  widely  the 
influence  of  our  struggle  with  oppression  had 
reached,  he  rehearsed  a  recent  conversation 
with  the  venerable  Dr.  Nott,  of  Union  College, 
in  which  the  now  almost  dying  sage  had  tenderly 
spoken  of  us,  and  had  expressed  the  hope  that 
our  firmness  would  stay  the  progress  of  tyranny 
towards  the  overthrow  of  our  liberties. 

Thus  have  wise  and  Christian  men  remem 
bered  us  to  the  end.  And  in  the  sympathy 
we  have  thus  enjoyed,  we  have  had  abundant 
proof  that  the  Christian  anti-slavery  element 
of  society  is  at  length  stirred,  and  that  the 
change  which  must  follow  this  quickening  is 
close  at  hand. 

And  now,  friends,  to  all  the  blessings  which 
Heaven  has  sent  us,  has  been  kindly  added  this 
greeting.  Surely  pur  cup  runs  over  with  good 
things,  and  long  will  it  be  before  we  forgfet  the 
mercies  which  m  our  imprisonment  and  in  our 
release,  we  have  been  and  are  permitted  to 
enjoy. 

After  the  Professor  had  closed  his  remarks, 
the  cheering  was  renewed.  Such  cheering  it 
was  good  to  hear.  It  was  only  equalled  by  the 
grand  performance  of  the  great  organ  and 
choir  which  followed.  The  Marseilles  Hymn 
was  sung  as,  we  were  about  to  say,  that  choir 
only  can  sing  it,  and  then  Mr.  Fitch  was  called 
for,  and  was  received  with  a  cordial  welcome 
which  would  have  been  gratifying  to  any  man. 

j.  M.  FITCH'S  SPEECH. 

Mr.  Fitch  said :  —  My  heart  beats  tumultu- 
ously,  and  my  joys  are  abundant,  as  I  once 
more  look  upon  the  faces  of  my  dear  friends  in 
Oberlin.  Oberlin !  The  people  most  abused 
and  insulted,  yet  the  dearest  to  my  heart  of  all 
the  world  besides.  Oberlin  !  The  name  which 
for  twenty-four  years  I  have  pronounced  with 
the  love,  the  veneration,  the  enthusiasm  with 
which  the  old  Jews  were  wont  to  say  Jerusalem ! 
Dear  Oberlin !  "  Where  thou  goest,  I  will  go. 
Thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  God 
my  God.  Where  thou  diest  I  will  die,  and 
there  will  I  be  buried."  When,  unexpectedly, 


my  eyes  were  again  delighted  with  a  view  of 
Oberlin  in  the  distance,  it  was  the  most  precious 
moment  of  my  life.  Glorious  Oberlin  !  lot  thy 
rebuke  of  wrong  be  uttered,  and  the  world  shall 
hear  thy  voice. 

I  have  had  my  seasons  of  deep  sadness  in 
Oberlin ;  I  have  had  my  share  of  affliction. 
When  remorseless  death  has  sent  to  yonder 
graveyard  my  parents  and  my  first-born,— 
when  a  large  family  of  dear  brothers  have 
melted  away  like  the  snows  of  early  Spring,  I 
have  sometimes  felt  desolate  and  alone.  But  I 
see  to-night  that  I  am  not  friendless.  This 
overwhelming  jubilation  is  too  much  for  poor 
sinful  man  to  bear.  Who  am  I,  that  I  should 
be  crowned  as  a  conqueror  ?  I  have  received 
a  wreath  from  the  hands  of  youth  and  beauty, 
and  God  forgive  me  if  the  tears  I  shed  are  not 
those  of  humble  thankfulness,  instead  of  pride. 
I  have  borne  the  token  to  this  stand  with  diffi 
culty,  which  I  could  not  and  would  not  have 
done,  if  I  were  not  assured  that  these  extraor 
dinary  attentions  betoken  your  interest  in  THE 
GLORIOUS  CAUSE,  and  not  in  the  man.  The 
language  of  my  heart  is,  "  God  forbid  that  I 
should  glory,"  save  in  the  triumphs  of  truth  and 
righteousness. 

Eighty-five  days'  imprisonment  have  taught 
me  many  lessons,  two  of  which  I  will  recite, 
and  if  I  should  be  as  successful  in  my  recitation 
as  I  have  been  in  my  study,  I  should  receive 
the  highest  mark,  for  I  have  learned  the  lessons 
thoroughly. 

First,  I  have  learned  in  a  sense  never  before 
so  well  understood,  that  truth  is  mighty,  and  that 
in  a  conflict  with  error,  one  "shall  chase  a 
thousand,  and  two  put  ten  thousand  to  flight." 
Oh,  that  the  leaders  who  are  set  for  her  defence 
could  understand  that  when  settled  on  the  rock 
of  truth,  they  want  nothing  more  but  boldness 
to  lift  up  their  heads  against  the  storm  !  Oh, 
that  they  would  disencumber  themselves  —  that 
they  would  spurn  all  considerations  of  policy  — 
that  they  would  cease  to  ask  how  will  it  affect 
my  standing  —  and  only  ask,  am  I  ri^ht  ?  —  then 
in  the  name  of  God  and  of  truth  /  will  go  ahead  ! 
They  have  in  possession  a  sword  of  heavenly 
temper,  but,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  many  of  them 
are  afraid  to  draw  lest  its  very  flash  in  the  sun 
should  scare  the  people  and  create  an  excite 
ment.  So  shall  they  never  succeed.  So  shall 
truth  never  prevail.  So  have  not  the  brave 
hearts  of  old  done  their  work.  Let  us  say,  with 
the  Hebrews  —  "  God  will  deliver  us  —  but  it 
not  we  will  not  obey "  wicked  laws.  Let  us, 
like  Daniel,  open  our  windows  towards  Jerusa 
lem,  and  publicly  spurn  the  wicked  enactment 
as  aforetime.  Like  Nehemiah,  let  us  say, 
"  Shall  such  a  man  as  I  flee  ?  "  "  Shall  I  go  in 
(or  '  give  in ' )  to  save  my  life  ?  /  will  not." 
Or  like  Luther  —  "  Duty  calls,  and  I  will  go  if 
the  devils  are  as  thick  at  Worms  as  the  tiles  on 
the  houses."  Let  our  leaders  boldly  cast  all 
into  the  scale — make  an  offering  of  self  entirely, 
even  to  the  extent  of  life,  if  necessary,  and  then 


270 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


their  blows  will  "  dash  the  enemy  in  pieces  like 
a  potter's  vessel." 

"  Tho'  sharp  be  the  conflict  'twill  pass  before  long, 
And  then,  0  how  pleasant,  the  Conqueror's  song. 

Again,  I  have  learned  another  lesson,  namely, 
that  it  is  not  a  dreadful  thing  to  r/o  to  jail.  Our 
trials  have  been  considerable  ;  our  unfavorable 
situation  and  our  various  excitements  by  day, 
and  our  restlessness  in  close  rooms  and  amid  the 
noise  of  raving  maniacs  by  night,  have  been,  in 
one  sense,  hard  to  bear.  We  would  blush  to 
compare  ourselves  with  the  noble  sufferers  for 
truth  who  have  gone  before  us,  yet  we  have 
Buffered  enough  to  understand  them.  We 
don't  wonder  that  the  brave  martyrs  and  a 
glorious  host  of  "  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy"  endured  pains,  torments,  and  death 
cheerfully,  yea,  triumphantly,  for  we  can  well 
understand  that  when  sustained  by  the  immor 
tal  hope  that  the  truth  which  was  in  them  should 
soon  rise  like  a  sun  upon  a  darkened  world,  and 
shed  a  shower  of  gold  upon  the  impoverished 
earth,  such  inspiration  might  easily  lead  them 
to  say  to  the  God  of  truth  —  "  In  thy  service 
pain  is  pleasure.*1  Physically,  the  prisoner  for 
the  truth  suffers  as  well  as  others,  but  the 
"  answer  of  a  good  conscience,"  the  hope  of 
usefulness,  and  the  luxury  of  divine  approval, 
assuage  his  griefs,  and  banish  all  his  pains. 

Never  since  I  became  a  lover  of  truth  have 
my  hopes  risen  so  high,  and  iny  confidence  in 
her  speedy  triumph  been  so  great.  Courage 
and  energy  are  all  we  want,  when  ivarring  for 
the  Lord.  Slavery  is  a  braggart.  He  is  a 
coward.  He  foamcth  and  maketh  a  noise,  but 
he  who  meets  him  with  the  courage  of  a  David, 
and  says,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  will  I 
destroy  you,"  shall  soon  see  how  unequal  the 
conflict  when  truth  and  error  meet.  Oberlin 
alone,  if  baptized  with  the  true  spirit  of  mar 
tyrs,  would  be  a  match  for  the  world.  This 
glorious  company  of  youths,  clothed  in  the 
panoply  of  righteousness,  strong  in  the  boldness 
of  truth,  and  fired  with  the  zeal  of  the  Lord, 
could  soon  send  the  huge  but  really  weak  mon 
ster,  Slavery,  howling  to  his  native  hell. 

John  Watson  was  next  called  out  and  was 
received  with  applause.  His  speech  was  lis 
tened  to  with  marked  attention. 

JOHN  WATSON'S  SPEECH. 
Friends  and  Fellow- Citizens,  —  I  come  be 
fore  you  to-night,  under  circumstances  new  in 
deed.  And  right  gladly  do  I  meet  you.  This 
is  my  heart's  home.  When  I  look  on  your  fa 
miliar  and  loving  faces,  my  heart  flows  with 
gratitude  that  I  may  see  you  once  again.  On 
the  13th  of  September  last,  when  there  came  a 
rumor  that  one  of  my  fellow  men  had  been  kid 
napped,  I  left  my  little  place  of  business  to  as 
certain,  if  possible,  his  whereabouts.  I  went 
to  Wellington,  and  did  what  I  thought  was  my 
duty  toward  releasing  the  helpless5  victim  of 
oppression.  Little  did  I  theu  think  of  bein^ 


brought  before  the  District  Court  of  the  United 
States.  But  I  was  not  only  taken  there,  but 
thence  dragged  to  prison,  along  with  these  my 
brethren,  and  there  kept  in  close  confinement 
for  eighty-five  days ;  and  when  I  look  upon 
these  my  brethren  in  bonds,  my  heart  gushes 
with  gratitude  to  think  that  their  friends  are 
my  friends. 

I  believe  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  Chris 
tian —  and  every  man  should  be  a  Christian  — 
to  help  all  who  are  oppressed,  whatever  may 
be  the  color  of  their  skin.  I  believed  so  then, 
and  it  was  from  this  conviction  of  duty  alone 
that  I  acted.  My  friends,  when  I  heard  Mr. 
Fitch  and  Prof.  Peck  speak  about  the  death  of 
their  mothers,  brothers,  children,  and  friends, 
my  own  mind  was  led  to  the  contrast  between 
the  separation  of  mothers  and  children  by 
death,  and  that  unspeakably  more  awful  sepa 
ration  at  the  Auction-block. 

But  the  spirit  of  slavery  is  the  same  North 
and  South,  and  even  here  it  would  rob  us  of 
our  all  as  readily  as  in  South  Carolina.  Tho 
Federal  Government  is  possessed  of  this  demon, 
and  we  have  all  seen  within  the  last  three 
months  the  graspings  of  its  fiendish  greed. 
Yes,  and  even  here  in  Oberlin,  have  we 
wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.  They  come  to  us 
with  fawning  fingers  and  smiling  lips,  while 
in  their  hearts  they  are  plotting  the  most 
piratical  and  inhuman  atrocities,  and  plotting 
them  against  us,  their  next-door  neighbors, 
who  never  lifted  a  finger  to  harm  them  or 
theirs,  and  never  would.  Now,  my  friends, 
shall  such  men  remain  in  our  midst  ?  If  we 
had  not  had  these  traitors  here,  we  .should 
never*  have  seen  such  wretches  as  Lowe, 
Mitchell,  Jennings,  and  Davis  —  yes,  and  even 
Dayton  —  prowling  about  our  houses.  I  think 
that  if  emphatic  leave  of  absence  had  been 
given  these  men  long  ago,  we  should  have  been 
saved  all  the  trials  of  the  last  year.  But  if 
good  has  grown  out  of  our  sufferings,  we 
ought  to  be  content.  My  friends,  as  the  hour 
is  late,  I  will  not  detain  you.  I  rest  in  this 
confidence,  that  your  purpose  is  one  purpose, 
and  that  it  was  never  so  fixed  as  now,  that 
whatever  you  may  have  done  in  the  past, 
henceforth  you  will  show  oppression  no  quarter. 

The  evening  was  by  this  time  far  spent,  and 
the  venerable  chairman  resigned  his  seat  to 
Professor  Monroe. 

The  Professor  informed  the  audience  that 
the  County  Clerk,  Mr.  Horr,  of  Elyria,  was 
present,  and  would  entertain  them  with  an 
account  of  how  the  Kentuckians  didn't  suc 
ceed  in  Elyria,  and  how  the  writ  wasn't  served. 
Mr.  H.  came  forward,  and  met  such  a  warm 
reception  as  must  have  been  cheering.  He 
spoke  as  follows  :  — 

MR.   IIORR'S   SPEECH. 

Just  before  leaving  home  for  this  place,  I  met 
one  of  the  prominent  Hunkers  of  your  county, 
and  observing  that  he  looked  rather  downcast 


OBERLIN- WELLING! ON  RESCUE. 


271 


and  crest-fallen,  I  said  to  him,  "What  is  the 
matter?"  "Why,"  said  he,  "there  has  been 
a  contest  going  on  between  Lorain  County  arid 
the  United  States,  and  Uncle  Sam  has  kicked 
the  bucket ! " 

Poor  man !  how  I  pitied  him  in  his  affliction. 

But  I  have  been  asked  to  give  some  account 
as  to  how  they  "  did  'nt  serve  the  habeas  cor 
pus  "  down  at  Elyria.  Some  two  weeks  ago  it 
was  rumored  in  our  village  that  an  attempt  was 
going  to  be  made  to  release  the  Kentucky  kid 
nappers  from  our  custody  by  the  aid  of  a  writ 
of  habeas  corpus,  which  would  be  issued  by 
Judge  McLean.  In  a  conversation  with  our 
Sheriff  as  to  what  was  best  to  be  done  in  such 
an  emergency,  he  informed  me  that  when  such 
a  writ  reached  our  town  he  should  probably 
have  business  in  the  remote  part  of  the  county ! 

On  Saturday  last  the  District- Attorney,  mar 
shal,  and  prisoners  arrived  in  Elyria,  just  as  our 
Sheriff  happened  to  be  leaving  the  same  place. 
The  marshal  immediately  despatched  a  post- 
oflice  clerk  with  a  message  that  Marshal  John 
son,  marshal  of  the  United  States,  wished  to 
see  him,  and  that  he  should  return  as  soon  as 
possible  to  Elyria.  The  sheriff  was  in  Am- 
herst  attending  to  the  sale  of  some  property,  and 
sent  back  word  to  his  honor,  the  marshal,  that 
if  he  wished  to  see  him  he  had  better  come 
where  he  was,  as  he  might  be  detained  rather 
late.  The  Sheriff  reached  town  early  in  the 
evening.  The  Attorney  Beldcn,  the  Marshal, 
and  the  kidnappers  immediately  repaired  to  the 
office  of  the  Probate  Judge,  for  the  purpose  of 
surrendering  the  prisoners  into  custody,  the 
bail  being  present  to  make  the  application.  But 
lo  !  and  behold  the  Sheriff  was  missmg !  Then 
commenced  a  search  for  him  that  rasted  until 
eleven  o'clock.  All  hands  turned  in  and 
searched  for  Burr.  But  wonderful  to  relate, 
no  Burr  could  be  found  !  Some  of  us  had  often 
heard  the  remark,  that  it  was  a  great  help  for 
a  person  in  searching  for  an  individual  whom 
he  wished  to  find,  to  know  where  he  was, 
but  we  had  never  before  fully  realized  what 
an  advantage  it  was,  in  a  search  for  one  whom 
we  did  not  wish  to  find!  But  not  being 
able  to  find  the  Sheriff,  the  matter  was  post 
poned  until  Sunday  morning,  when  an  attempt 
was  made  to  get  the  Sheriff  and  Probate 
Judge  together,  and  so  do  their  work  on  the 
Sabbath.  But  both  officers  refused  to  open 
office  on  that  day.  Then  came  the  game  on 
the  part  of  Belden  and  Johnson.  They  asked 
the  Judge  if  he  would  be  in  his  office  in  the 
morning?  lie  replied  that  he  should.  They 
then  informed  several  of  our  citizens  that  they 
should  leave  the  town  immediately,  and  not  re 
turn  until  after  the  Fourth,  and  it  was  gene 
rally  understood  that  they  had  gone.  But  in 
stead  of  doing  as  they  said  they  would,  they 
confined  themselves  in  their  room,  and  no  more 
was  seen  of  them  until  evening.  It  was  then 
rumored  that  they  had  been  playing  a  double 
game,  and  that  all  the  talk  about  going  to 


Cleveland,  was  a  mere  ruse  gotten  up  solely  to 
throw  the  officers  of  our  county  off  their  guard. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  was  thought  ad 
visable  that  Judge  Doolittle  should  visit  his 
friends  in  Painesville,  whom  we  all  knew  he 
had  neglected  very  much  of  late  !  The  Judge 
objected  on  the  ground  that  Belden  and  the 
Marshal  expected  to  see  him  in  the  morning, 
but  being  informed  by  Judge  Sheldon  that  they 
had  both  told  him  distinctly  that  they  should 
leave,  and  that  nothing  more  would  be  done 
in  the  case  until  Tuesday,  he  finally  concluded 
to  go,  and  that  he  might  have  a  plenty  of  time 
to  celebrate  the  Fourth,  he  took  an  early  start  I 
On  Monday  morning  Mrs.  Doolittle  was  wait 
ed  upon  by  Attorney  Belden,  between  four  and 
five  in  the  morning,  who  inquired  for  Judge 
Doolittle.  You  may  imagine  how  he  looked 
upon  being  informed  that  Judge  Doolittle  had 
been  gone  some  two  hours!  But,  said  Belden, 
"  I  had  an  appointment  with  the  Judge." 
"  True,"  replied  Mrs.  Doolittle,  "  he  spoke  of 
that ;  but  Judge  Sheldon  informed  him  that  you 
had  told  him  that  you  should  leave  town  and  not 
be  back  until  Tuesday,  hence  supposing  that  his 
services  would  not  be  needed,  he  concluded  to 
visit  his  lon£  neglected  friends."  Attorney  Bel 
den  left,  with  that  peculiar  expression  on  his 
face  that  always  attends  an  individual  who  has 
been  caught  in  his  own  trap.  The  kidnapping 
squad  then  left  for  Cleveland,  and  returned 
again  on  Tuesday  morning ;  but  Judge  Doolittle, 
very  unfortunately  (?)  had  been  unable  to  "  tear 
himself  away  from  his  friends,"  and  Belden, 
Johnson  £  Co.  were  compelled  to  return,  with 
the  consciousness  that  unless  something  could  be 
done,  the  kidnappers  must  be  tried  or  forfeit 
their  bail.  But  to  complete  the  farce,  Belden 
ordered  Johnson  to  serve  the  writs  on  our 
Sheriff,  but  he  not  being  inclined  to  take  them, 
they  afterwards  served  them  on  our  jail,  by 
leaving  them  at  the  residence  of  Sheriff  Burr. 

Here  we  have  a  United  States  Marshal  serving 
a  writ  commanding  an  officer  to  bring  certain 
prisoners  to  Cleveland,  who  he  well  knew  had  not 
been  in  that  officer's  custody  for  nearly  two 
months.  How  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  ob 
tained  is  difficult  to  tell,  unless  it  was  by  false  affi 
davits.  Tuesday  evening  Hon.  D.  K.  Cartter  ar 
rived  in  town,  who  had  been  employed  to  assist  in 
the  prosecution.  He  said  the  Kentuckians  were 
in  great  terror  at  the  prospect  of  "  facing  the 
music."  "  Why,"  said  Cartter  (he  stutters  some 
times  you  know),  "them  scapegraces  were  so 
scart  you  could  ha'  wa-a-a-ashed  your  ha-a-a-ands 
in  the  sweat  o'  their  faces  ! "  He  at  once  com 
municated  the  intelligence  that  he  brought  pro 
posals  for  an  unconditional  surrender  on  the 
part  of  the  General  Government.  The  condi 
tions  you  all  understand,  and  the  result  of  them 
is  the  spectacle  now  before  us. 

Many  of  us  have  come  here  to-night  for  the 
purpose  of  seeing  the  twelve  men  who  stood  up 
boldly  for  freedom,  who  have  asked  for  no 
quarters  from  the  enemy,  who  are  here  to-night, 


272 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


victorious,  with  no  nolle  contenders  to  dim  the 
lustre  of  their  fame.  This  should  be  a  proud 
evening  for  them.  They  have  taught  the  coun 
try  a  great  lesson  :  they  have  shown  to  the 
world  that  men  who  would  steal  our  citizens 
must  do  it  at  their  peril.  They  have  established 
the  fact  that  henceforth  in  Lorain  county  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  is  a  nullity,  and  for  their 
reward  thousands  of  hearts  are  to-night  beating 
the  response,  "  well  done,  good  and  faithful  ser- 
vants." 

Mr.  W.  E.  LINCOLN  was  called  out,  and  was 
received  by  his  fellow-students  and  the  audience 
generally,  in  the  warmest  and  most  cordial  man 
ner. 

w.  E.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH. 

In  the  presence  of  slave-holders,  when  rebuk 
ing  them  from  the  pulpit  in  the  South,  for  the 
sin  of  slave-holding,  I  have  been  undaunted ; 
but  in  the  presence  of  so  much  intellect  and 
sympathy,  I  strangely  fear,  and  want  in  self- 
possession.  In  the  democratic  papers,  we,  the 
four  naturalized  citizens  from  England,  have 
been  denominated  "  Oberlin  Jacks  and  Don 
keys."  This  feeling  and  usage  from  the  De 
mocracy  has  not  surprised  us  after  the  Cass 
letter;  but  we  accept  the  title,  and  being  Bible 
men  par  excellence,  as  the  Democrats  own,  we 
seek  for  our  character  there.  Bible  donkeys 
•were  not  the  degenerate,  much  abused  animals 
vou  find  now,  but  a  right  royal  and  king  bear 
ing  quadruped.  We  find  they  laughed  to  scorn 
the  speed  of  the  hunter,  and  swiftness  we  find 
to  be  their  predominant  characteristic.  We  were, 
as  Democratic  evidence  shows,  for  we  got  to 
Wellington,  some  nine  miles  off,  in  forty-five 
minutes.  Ever  swift  and  speedy  will  we  be  for 
the  right  and  for  freedom ;  and  if  needs  be  to 
rescue  our  brother,  we  will  equal  the  speed  of 
the  ball. 

In  olden  times  a  stream  rising  from  two 
mounds  sent  death  and  barrenness  all  along  its 
course.  The  land  that  would  have  smiled  with 
palm  and  cedar  and  waving  corn,  was  bald  and 
seared.  Many  trials  were  made  to  cure  the 
barren  waters ;  what  failures,  what  disappoint 
ment.  Becoming  wise  from  repeated  failures, 
the  men  of  Jericho  came  at  last  to  the  man  of 
God,  Elisha.  When  they  took  the  course  of  true 
wisdom  they  soon  heard  the  welcome,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  I  have  healed,  there  shall  not  be 
from  them  any  more  death  or  barrenness." 

Slavery  is  a  fountain  whose  waters  spread 
along  all  its  course  desolation,  misery,  despair, 
and  stolidity  more  dire  than  the  dreadful  Upas 
shade. 

We  Americans  have  wondered  at  its  death 
course  from  its  fountain,  at  its  deep  springs  in 
Covetousness  and  Lust  to  its  "  consummation  of 
all  villany."  We  have  striven  to  heal  its  waters 
by  compromises ;  by  Websterian  Slave  Laws ; 
by  ignoring  all  the  rights  of  colored  men  in 
Supreme  Courts,  and  have  miserably  failed.  We 
have  called  on  the  church  of  God  for  help,  and 


she,  by  calling  good  evil  and  evil  good,  hoped  to 
purify  and  cleanse  the  abominable  stream.  She 
has  trailed  the  banner  of  Love  in  the  filth  of  sin, 
and  amid  the  scorn  and  jeers  of  the  ungodly 
she  has  failed,  miserably  failed,  reaping  a  dragon- 
teeth  harvest  of  scorning  infidelity.  °We  iTave 
tried  political  excitement,  and  have  failed.  Now 
wise,  let  us  seek  to  God,  and  the  waters  shall  be 
healed.  Let  us  gird  ourselves  with  truth  and  ho 
liness,  and  then  under  the  banner  of  the  Almighty 
we  shall  move  on  to  certain  victory.  We  shall 
thus  cast  into  the  water  salt  from  the  new  cruise 
which  has  ever  healed  the  world's  woes.  This 
made  the  difference  between  the  result  of  the 
labors  of  the  ancients  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
Luther,  Cromwell,  and  the  Puritans  on  the 
other.  The  ancients,  with  powers  of  intellect  to 
which  our  masters  bow  as  pupils,  failed  because 
there  was  no  Christ,  no  God,  only  a  Pater  Om- 
nipotens,  a  Jupiter  to  aid  them.  These  noble 
moderns  succeeded  and  founded  the  only  liber 
ties  of  earth,  because  they  thus  spoke  and 
trusted :  — 

"  Here  I  stand,  I  can  do  no  other,  God  help 
me." 

"  Men,  fear  God  and  keep  your  powder  dry" 

Let  us,  then,  with  a  gentle,  firm  spirit,  be  sua- 
viter  in  modo  fortiter  in  re,  imitating  the  good 
ness  of  the  Scotch  wife,  so  well  illustrated  by 
the  wives  of  the  married  of  our  party,  and 
sweetly  illustrated  by  the  "  gentle  friends  "  of  the 
non-married  of  our  party  ;  let  us  with  the  can- 
nie  wife  say,  "  Your  majesty,  rather  than  my 
husband  should  break  God's  law  in  obeying 
you,  I  would  receive  his  head  in  my  apron 
here." 

The  Ctairman  here  remarked  that  he  would 
ask  the  aMience  to  excuse  him  for  the  intro 
duction  of  another  subject  —  the  subject  of 
finance.  Expense  is  attendant  upon  all  our 
doings,  and  we  incur  expense  to-night.  You 
remember  when  the  slave  woman  was  to  be  re 
deemed  in  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  church,  the 
pastor  said  "  he  did  not  like  to  hear  a  vulgar 
noise  in  church,  but  he  had  no  objection  to  a 
godly  clapping  of  hands."  We  have  had  va 
rious  kinds  of  clapping  here  to-night,  and  the 
chairman  would  now  suggest  one  additional 
kind,  namely,  clapping  —  their  hands  into  their 
pockets. 

Nimble  youth  moved  through  the  audience  a» 
collectors,  while  Mr.  JOHN  SCOTT,  who  was 
called  for,  addressed  the  meeting  in  a  few  for 
cible  and  appropriate  words. 

JOHN  SCOTT'S  SPEECH. 

We  left  our  loved  home  ere  the  snows  of 
early  spring  had  melted,  and  we  returned  not 
till  the  gardens  were  filled  with  flowers,  and 
the  fields  clothed  with  greenness.  We  have 
endeavored  to  maintain  the  truth,  and  we  are 
not  ashamed  to  send  down  our  example  to  our 
children.  God  has  been  very  merciful  to  us, 
and  we  and  our  families  have  been  preserved 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


273 


in  health.      Surely  God  has    encouraged    us 
ever  after  this  to  "  stand  up  for  Jesus." 

HENRY   EVANS'S   SPEECH. 

Friends :  when  I  use  the  term  friends,  I  do 
not  use  it  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech.  It  comes 
from  the  utmost  depths  of  my  soul.  Your  pres 
ence  here  bears  testimony  of  the  fact  that  you 
are  our  friends.  The  care  that  you  have  taken 
to  provide  for  our  families  during  our  imprison 
ment,  proved  your  heartfelt  sympathy,  for  which 
•we  are  grateful.  Never  during  our  confine 
ment  have  you  been  forgotten  ;  in  our  daily  de 
votions  to  Almighty  God  you  have  been  re 
membered.  We  felt  that  your  cause  was  our 
cause,  and  your  presence  in  such  numbers  this 
evening  more  than  substantiates  the  conviction. 
While  in  prison  we  were  cheered  by  daily  com 
munication  from  your  breathing  a  spirit  of 
prayer  in  our  behalf.  I  profess  to  be  a  believer 
in  Christ,  knowing  that  without  prayer  and  His 
presence  no  great  good  can  be  accomplished. 
The  Bible  has  been  our  guide.  Through  it  we 
have  realized  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
•which  has  led  us  on  in  the  discharge  of  our  duty, 
and  buoyed  us  up  to  faithfully  accomplish  the 
•work  that  had  been  assigned  us ;  the  result  of 
•which  is  a  victory  on  the  side  of  truth,  a  tri 
umph,  indeed,  over  wrong. 

For  eighteen  years,  I  have  been  seeking  to 
know  what  the  Lord  would  have  me  do  in  my 
humble  position  in  life.  During  that  time  he 
has  visited  me  with  afflictions.  He  has  taken 
from  our  earthly  embrace  a  darling  child ;  He 
has  taken  from  me  a  loved  and  loving  mother. 
All  this  I  bore  patiently  in  submission  to  hi 
will.  When  I  was  cast  into  prison,  my  heart 
again  said,  let  thy  will,  not  mine  be  done.  I 
need  not  tell  you,  my  friends,"  that  to  suffer  for 
humanity's  sake  has  been  to  me  a  pleasure  and 
not  a  pain.  I  rejoice  to  say  that  I  had  resigned 
myself  into  the  hands  of  Him  who  is  the  wise 
disposer  of  us  all.  Every  thing  of  an  earthly 
nature  my  mind  had  given  up.  My  soul  had 
entered  into  the  work  that  God  had  called  me 
to  accomplish. 

I  feel  that  we  have  discharged  our  duty ;  we 
have  finished  the  work  given  us  to  do.  The 
telegraph  wires  have  flashed  our  victory  through 
the  country.  It  has  gone  up  to  heaven — an 
gels  and  archangels  are  now  singing  hosannas 
to  the  Lord  for  our  deliverance,  and  there  are 
no  words  that  better  express  my  feelings  than 
the  following,  which  by  way  of  conclusion  I  wii1 
repeat :  — 

"  Praise  God  from  whom  all  blessings  flow, 
Traise  Him  all  creatures  here  below.'' 

Mr.  LYMAN  was  called  out,  and  every  one 
who  heard  the  cheering  was  well  assured  that 
the  audience  were  glad  to  see  him. 

A.  w.  LYMAN'S  SPEECH. 

Upon   a  scene  like    this  language  has  no 

power.    The  occasion  speaks  for  itself.    My 

35 


own  heart  is  too  full  for  utterance.    I  am  glad 
to  see  you.    I  am  glad  to  meet  friends  and 
associates.  I  am  glad  to  meet  the  Fire  Depart 
ment  upon  this  occasion,  of  which  I  am  a  mem 
ber.   I  know  there  are  true  and  devoted  hearts 
;o  the  great  cause  of  freedom  in  that  Depart 
ment,  who  would  sacrifice  their  lives  and  their 
all  to  the  cause  of  liberty.     What  has  brought 
about  this  great  change  ?   Was  it  a  compromise 
upon  our  part  ?     Did  we  get  down  upon  our 
lands  and  knees,  and  crawl  in  the  dust  at  the 
feet  of  the  slave  power  ?    No !     It  was  the 
government  that  wished   to  come  to  terms. 
They  did  not  wish  nor  did  they  dare  prosecute 
the  matter  any  farther.     They  were  not  only 
afraid  of  having  those  Kentucky  kidnappers 
sent  to  purgatory,  but  they  were  afraid  that  the 
whole  Democratic  party  would  be  sent  there. 
We  have  heard  those  that  have  visited  us  dur- 
ng  our  confinement  say  that  we  must  not  adopt 
any  policy  that  would  damage  the  Republican 
party.     I  would  say  if  there  is  not  power  and 
virtue  enough  in  the  Republican  party  to  repu 
diate  the  great  evil  of  American  slavery,  and 
the  infernal  Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850,  then 
I  say  let  the  party  go.  I  believe  there  is  virtue 
enough  left  in  the  party  to  do  it.     Let  us  go  to 
work°and  get  rid  of  the  conservative  elements 
of  the  party,  and  those  old  fogy  principles  that 
stick  tighter  than   a  tick  on  a  sheep's  back. 
Our  fathers  fought  at  Bunker  Hill  and  on  the 
plains  of  Lexington  for  the  rights  and  liberties 
which  we  this  day  enjoy.     Liberties,  did  I  say? 
No.    We  do  not  all  enjoy  liberty.     It  was  the 
design  of  the  fathers  of  this  great  Republic 
that°all  should  enjoy  the  blessings  of  liberty 
without  distinction   in   regard   to   birth,  com 
plexion,  or  conditions  of  men.     I  would  say  in 
conclusion,  that  we  should  all  adopt  the  lan 
guage  of  Patrick  Henry,  "  Give  me  h'berty,  or 
give  me  death." 

Mr.  RICHARD  WINSOR  came  forward  in 
answer  to  an  earnest  call,  and  was  received 
with  as  much  enthusiasm  as  heart  could  wish. 

RICHARD    WIXSOR'S    SPEECH. 

Beloved  friends  :  —  I  feel  that  I  must  say  a 
few  words,  for  my  heart  is  full.  I  with  joy 
return  again  to  the  bosom  of  OberKn.  Ober- 
lin,  if  not  heretofore,  now  an  honor,  a  joy,  and 
glory  to  our  State. 

And  you,  my  fellow-students,  who,  while 
this  glorious  strife  has  been  waging,  have  been 
climbing  the  hill  of  science,  we,  who  are  young 
in  this  little  band,  trust  that  we  have  made 
some  progress  too ;  while  you  have  progressed 
theoretically,  we  have  in  experience  and  rigid 
discipline.  And  you,  my  beloved  class  matesr 
who  have  been  taught  from  the  mouths  of  your 
teachers,  we,  too,  have  been  taught,  but  by  the 
silent,  God-like  patience,  energy,  and  perse 
verance  in  the  example  of  these,  my  elder 
brethren,  who  have  been  to  us  examples  .of 
true  men  during  our  imprisonment. 

And  now,  as  I  stand  here,  my  eye  rests  upon 


274 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


that  little  upper  chamber  within  the  prison  walls, 
where  we  have  often  sung  and  prayed  together, 
and  there,  as  we  have  consulted  together  con 
cerning  the  glorious  combat  between  Freedom 
and  Slavery,  I  have  seen  the  tear  glisten  in  the 
eye,  and  heard  the  outgushing  of  hearts  filled 
with  the  love  of  truth^  as  these  dear  brethren 
have  consecrated  their  wives,  their  little  ones, 
their  property,  their  lives,  and  all,  to  GOD  and 
Freedom.  Ah,  my  friends,  no  language  can 
portray  the  scenes  that  there  have  transpired 
within  those  prison  walls.  And  now  1  close, 
my  beloved  friends  and  fellow-students,  by  say 
ing,  let  us  go  and  do  likewise. 

Sheriff  BURR,  of  Lorain,  after  repeated  and 
urgent  calls,  came  forward. 

SHERIFF   BURR'S    SPEECH. 

He  said :  —  Sham  Democrats  have  raised  a 
great  hue  and  cry  about  my  dodging.  I  dodged 
nobody.  I  had  business  to  do,  and  I  attended 
to  it  as  though  no  Belden  or  kidnappers  were 
about.  I  was  in  town  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  when  I  got  ready  to  go  to  another  part  of 
the  county  to  sell  some  property,  I  went.  Mar 
shal  Johnson  sent  for  me  to  come  home  as  quick 
as  possible.  [The  Marshal  is  apt  to  order  folks 
a  good  deal,  and  to  add,  with,  O  how  much  im 
portance,  "  I  am  the  United  States  Marshall."] 
But,  continued  the  speaker,  I  sent  word  to  the 
Marshal  that  if  he  wanted  to  see  me  more  than 
I  did  him,  he  could  come  along  if  he  liked. 
They  had  a  writ  which  they  could  not  have  ob 
tained  without  the  perjury  of  somebody,  which 
represented  the  kidnappers  as  in  custody  when 
it  was  notoriously  true  that  they  were  at  large. 
I  did  not  care  to  trouble  myself  much  under 
such  circumstances.  I  made  up  my  mind  to  put 
the  matter  through  straight,  if  I  should  be  com 
pelled  to  lie  in  jail  for  the  offence  till  the  bars 
rusted  off. 

Sheriff  WIGHTMAN  was  demanded  (I  can 
hardly  say  called  for),  and  rose  up  before  the 
audience.  Never,  in  all  my  life,  did  I  listen 
to  a  more  hearty,  spontaneous,  and  tremendous 
cheering  than  greeted  him.  He  stood  for  a 
long  time  awaiting  silence,  but  it  seemed  as 
though  the  people  would  never  be  satisfied 
When  the  repeated  bursts  of  enthusiasm  were 
over,  Mr.  W.  spoke  as  follows :  — 

SHERIFF  WIGHTMAN'S  SPEECH. 
Sheriff  Wightman  said  it  would  be  impossibl 
for  him  to  express  his  feelings  on  beholding  such 
a  mass  of  people.  He  was  no  speaker,  anc 
should  he  tell  people  when  he  got  home  that  he 
had  addressed  such  an  audience,  they  would  be 
astonished.  He  loved  and  respected  the  pris 
oners,  and  had  done  what  he  could  for  them 
He  had  been  glad,  also,  to  see  their  friends  ai 
the  jail.  They  had  always  been  welcome.  There 
"was  but  one  thing  to  mar  the  pleasure  of  the 
•evening  —  the  absence  of  Simeon  Bushnell 
Let  us  all  remember  him.  Let  those  wives  who 
.are  permitted  to  enjoy  the  society  of  their  hus- 


ands  to-night,  sympathize  with  his  sad  and 
ovely  wife. 

Mr.  Wightman  closed  amid  hearty  expres- 
ions  of  applause  from  the  audience. 

Mr.  Monroe  said,  "  Our  friend  need  not  sup 
pose  for  a  moment,  and  I  presume  does  not 
suppose,  that  we  are  in  any  danger,  to-night,  of 
ibrgetting  Simeon  Bushnell.  As  God  lives, 
and  as  my  soul  lives,  and  as  we  all  live,  when 
Simeon  Bushnell  does  come  to  town  we  11  give 
ilm  a  reception  which  will  convince  the  tyrants 
who  have  oppressed  him,  that  there  are  hearts 
lere  that  love  him." 

Father  Gillett  —  the  grand  old  man  —  the 
white-haired  patriarch,  next  rose.  I  will  not 
attempt  to  describe  the  splendid  reception  he 
met.  A  life  of  faithful  adherence  to  truth  would 
ae  well  rewarded  by  such  a  hearty  greeting 
from  such  a  glorious  audience. 

FATHER  GILLETT'S  SPEECH. 

He  spoke  in  a  lively  and  witty  manner.-  He 
said  that  after  being  taken  out  of  jail  the  mar 
shal  told  him  not  to  go  back  to  jail.  I  said,  "  I 
will  go,  I  want  to  get  my  clothes ;  and  beside,  I 
want  to  bid  my  friends  good-by"  So  he  took 
me  down  here.  He  took  me  in  his  carriage 
right  beside  him.  ['T  aint  often  I  get  a  ride  in 
a  carriage.]  While  we  were  riding  he  said, 
"  You  see  we  want  to  get  rid  of  you  Wellington 
folks,  and  then — [don't  say  nothing  'bout  it]." 
"  O  no,"  says  I,  "  I  ain't  going  to  say  nothing 
about  it."  But  I  suppose  this  is  like  all  other 
things,  when  it  is  over  with,  you  can  tell  out. 
"  And  then  we  will  drive  those  Oberlin  fellows 
to  the  wail"  Thinks  I,  then  you '11  have  some 
thing  to  drive,  that's  all ! 

Never  made  a  speech  in  my  life ;  don't  know 


for  was  just  for  being  ketched  down  at  Welling 
ton  ;  and  that  aint  all.  I  hav  n't  confessed  it  all 
yet  I  am  ashamed  that  I  did  n't  do  more  than 
just  be  ketched  down  there ;  and  if  there  is 
ever  another  such  a  time  I  am  going  to  have 
more  to  be  accused  of,  and  if  other  folks  are 
cowards,  I  '11  rescue  the  fugitive  myself.  I  used 
to  think  Oberlin  was  a  pretty  bad  kind  of  a 
place,  but  I've  changed  my  mind  about  it 
now. 

Prof.  Monroe  then  rose  and  said :  "  When  we 
see  a  good  old  block,  we  always  want  to  ask  if 
there  are  any  more  chips  of  the  same  kind. 
The  other  day,  when  I  was  at  Wellington,  a 
young  man  stepped  up  and  handed  me  three 
dollars  for  the  benefit  of  our  friends  here  ;  and 
when  I  asked  him  his  name  he  only  smiled,  and 
then  disappeared  in  the  crowd.  But  I  asked  a 
person  who  stood  near  me,  and  he  told  me  his 
name  was  Gillett;  and  I  understand  that  he  is 
not  the  only  one,  but  there  are  several  more 
of  'em." 

The  Chairman  then  said,  "We  have  given 
you  to-night  a  specimen  of  an  honest  Professor 


OBERLIN-WELLINGTON  KESCUE. 


275 


of  a  college  ;  and  perhaps  that  is  not  the  most 
remarkable  thing  in  the  world.  We  have  also 
brought  forward  an  honest  Lawyer,  and  per- 
haps°that  will  not  surprise  you.  But  we  have 
another  specimen  to  present  —  a  real  curiosity 

—  I  mean  an   honest  Postmaster!     [Cries  of, 
"  Brinf  him  out !  "     "  Let  us  see  him ! "]     I  in 
troduce  to  you  Mr.  Henry  R.  Smith,  whose  un 
ceasing  efforts  to  make  the  prisoners  comfort 
able  have    received    their*  lasting    gratitude. 
(Nearly  two  thousand  letters  have  been  sent 
from  the  jail  during   the  confinement  of  the 
"  Rescuers,"  and  Mr.  Smith's  kindness  in  mail 
ing  them  has  secured  him  his  office.) 

Mr.  Smith  came  forward.  To  give  an  ac 
count  of  his  reception  would  be  but  to  repeat 

—  "the  warmest  and  most  enthusiastic."     His 
little  speech  was  just  the  thing. 

Mr.  Washburn,  of  the  Elyria  Democrat,  was 
introduced  to  the  audience  and  made  a  capital 
speech. 

GEO.  G.  WASHBURN'S  SPEECH. 

Mr.  W.  said :  —  He  was  present  at  the  great 
Convention  of  freemen  in  Buffalo,  in  1848,  and 
heard  the  eloquent  Charles  B.  Sedgwick,  as  he 
gazed  over  the  vast  multitude,  exclaim,  "  My 
friends,  my  eyes  in  their  wildest  dreams  t  of 
fancy  had  never  hoped  to  look  upon  a  sce'ne 
like  this ! "  With  truth,  he  could  adopt  the  lan 
guage  of  the  eloquent  orator.  He  had  watched 
with  deep  solicitude  the  events  connected  with 
the  prosecutions  which  had  just  been  abandoned 
by  the  Government,  and,  although  at  times  the 
future  looked  dark  and  gloomy,  he  had  come 
here  to  rejoice  that  a  glorious  day  had  dawned 
upon  our  cause.  He  felt  it  was  well  the  blow 
had  fallen  where  it  did  —  upon  a  community 
who  had  the  boldness  to  meet  it,  the  fortitude 
to  endure  it,  and  the  discretion  to  act  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  result  in  the  triumph  they  had 
met  to  rejoice  over.  He  urged  the  friends  of 
the  slave  to  make  a  city  of  refuge  for  the  op 
pressed  in  every  township,  and  to  permit  no 
slave-hunter  to  enter  it  in  pursuit  of  his  vic 
tim. 

It  was  now  near  the  hour  of  midnight,  yet 
the  audience  gave  the  profoundest  attention  to 
the  very  close  of  Mr.  W.'s  speech,  of  which  we 
have  given  but  a  brief  report. 

Principal  H.  E.  Fairchild  next  occupied  a 
few  moments  in  appropriate  remarks,  and  then 
read  the  following  resolution  :  — 

RESOLUTION  OF    OBERLIN. 

Resolved,  That  this  meeting  request  the  Town 
Council  to  enter  the  following  minute  upon  the 
Records  of  the  Village  of  Oberlin  :  — 

The  citizens  of  Oberlin  assembled  in  Mass 
Meeting  to  welcome  home  our  faithful  repre 
sentatives,  Messrs.  Peck,  Plumb,  Fitch,  W. 
Evans,  Winsor,  Lincoln,  H.  Evans,  J.  Watson, 
I).  Watson,  Bartlett,  Lyman,  and  Scott,  who, 
rather  than  give  the  least  countenance  to  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  have  lain  eighty-four  days 


in  Cleveland  jail,  under  indictment  for  the  res 
cue  of  a  fugitive  slave  from  the  custody  of  a 
U.  S.  Marshal,  give  devout  thanks  to  Almighty 
God  for  the  grace  which  has  enabled  them 
patiently,  faithfully,  and  firmly  to  maintain  the 
contest  against  that  impious  enactment  till  the 
government  has  asked  for  quarter,  and  has 
volunteered  the  proposition  to  release  the  Lo- 
rain  criminals  under  the  Fugitive  Act,  on  con 
dition  that  Lorain  will  relinquish  the  U.  S. 
executors  of  the  Act. 

To  our  faithful  friends  we  express  our  warm 
est  gratitude  and  our  unqualified  commenda 
tion  for  the  firmness,  the  wisdom,  and  the 
fidelity  with  which  they  have  maintained  our 
common  cause. 

And  finally,  in  view  of  all  the  consequences 
attendant  upon  this  prosecution,  and  all  the 
light  shed  upon  the  subject,  we  unanimously 
express  our  greatly  increased  abhorrence  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  and  avow  our  determina 
tion  that  no  fugitive  slave  shall  ever  be  taken 
from  Oberlin  either  with  or  without  a  warrant, 
if  we  have  power  to  prevent  it. 

Passed  unanimously  July  6,  1859. 

CLOSING    SERVICES. 

Dr.  Morgan's  prayer  was  eloquent  and  im 
pressive.  In  closing,  his  great  and  noble  heart 
reached  out  towards  all,  and  he  prayed  that  the 
day  might  soon  dawn  when  all  the  world  should 
be  free,  and  when  in  all  the  earth  should  be 
found  not  one  enslaved  family,  nor  one  enslaved 
soul. 

It  was  then  requested  that  the  congregation 
would  join  with  the  choir  in  singing  the  Dox- 
ology,  and  not  less  than  twenty-five  hundred 
voices  united  in  singing  to  the  majestic  tune 
"  Old  Hundred,"  the  words :  — 

"  Praise  God  from  whom  all  blessings  flow, 
Praise  Him  all  creatures  here  below  ; 
Praise  Him  above,  ye  heavenly  host, 
Praise  Father,  Son,' and  Holy  "Ghost." 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Dr. 
Morgan,  while  the  vast  congregation  listened 
with  the  profoundest  silence  and  most  reverent 
attention.  Throughout  all  the  crowded  galleries 
scarcely  a  sound  was  to  be  heard. 

It  was  midnight  before  the  vast  audience 
broke  up,  and  during  the  long  exercises,  scarce 
ly  a  person  moved  from  the  church.  In  no 
other  instance  in  all  our  life,  have  we  known 
so  large  an  audience  held  for  so  long  a  time  in 
perfect  quiet.  It  was  an  evening  never  to  be 
forgotten  by  the  thousands  of  youth  who  have 
caught  the  spirit  and  will  carry  the  fire  into  all 
the  Dearth. 

THE   RECEPTION   OF   BUSIINELL. 

The  last  and  crowning  ovation  to  tho  tri 
umphant  Rescuers  came  off  on  Monday,  July 
llth,  a  day  that  will  long  be  too  bright  for 
tyrant  eyes  to  look  calmly  upon. 

Again  we  recur  to  the  editorial  columns  of 


276 


HISTORY  OF  THE 


the  Leader,  extracting  only  the  salient  points 
from  a  full  and  accurate  detail. 

BUSHNELL  AT  HOME. 

THE    OBERLIN   DEMONSTRATION. 

Yesterday  was  a  proud  day  for  the  "  Ober- 
lin  and  Wellington  Rescuers."  Previous  no 
tice  had  been  given,  that  Bushnell,  the  last  of 
the  jail  confined  "llescuers"  and  "Felons," 
was  to  proceed  to  his  home  in  Oberlin  ;  and  as 
the  hour  approached  for  his  departure  from 
the  stone  castle  where  for  so  many  weeks  he 
had  been  confined,  an  immense  crowd  gathered 
in  and  about  the  jail  to  see  him  off.  Both 
jail  and  yard  were  densely  crowded  with  the 
friends  of  the  prisoner.  Mr.  John  F.  Warner 
was  endowed  by  the  Sheriff  with  the  powers  of 
Marshal,  and  under  his  guidance  the  pro 
cession  was  formed,  headed  by  a  guard  of 
colored  men  with  a  banner  inscribed  '•  Oberlin 
and  Wellington  llescuers." 

Then  followed  the  Chaplain,  Eev.  J.  C. 
WHITE,  and  after  him  the  Hecker  Band  in 
full  uniform,  discoursing  lively  and  spirited 
national  airs.  Then  came  a  long  line  of  friends 
on  foot  followed  by  Mr.  BUSHNELL  in  a  car 
riage  with  his  baggage ;  accompanied  by  the 
ladies  of  Sheriff  Wightman's  family.  Several 
other  carriages  followed,  decorated  with  ban 
ners  and  flags.  A  great  crowd  followed  the 
procession  to  the  depot,  where  there  were 
gathered  immense  masses  who  welcomed  the 
hero  of  the  occasion  with  hearty  cheers. 

At  11:25  the  train,  with  six  crowded  coaches, 
left  the  depot,  the  band  playing  national  airs  as 
they  commenced  the  journey.  On  reaching 
Oberlin,  the  guns  of  Artillery  Co.  A.,  Cap 
tain  W.  R.  SIMMONS,  who  had  gone  to  that 
place  on  the  early  train,  spoke  forth  in  boom 
ing  notes  one  hundred  shots  of  welcome  and 
triumph.  That  Company,  with  the  Oberlin 
Hook  and  Ladder  and  Engine  Companies 
were  drawn  up  to  receive  the  Clevelanders. 
Besides  these,  there  were  thousands  of  the 
Lorain  citizens  ready  to  grasp  their  fellow- 
citizen  by  the  hand,  pne  banner  which  they 
carried  was  curious  arid  noticeable.  An  im 
mense  horn,  labelled  "  U.  S.  District  Court," 
was  the  principal  feature,  the  "Rescuers" 
issuing  from  the  large  end,  while  from  the 
little  end  of  the  horn  the  Officials  were  crawl 
ing  out  upon  the  "  Democratic  Platform,"  at 
which  one  was  grinding  at  "  Public  opinion." 
At  a  little  distance  from  the  Rescuers  were 
friends  who  greeted  them  with  "  Well  done, 
good  and  faithful  servants."  Besides  these 
there  was  a  pair  of  scales,  with  "  Higher  Law  " 
going  down  in  one  scale,  while  "  U.  S.  Laws  " 
were  flying  up,  being  weighed  in  the  balances 
and  found  wanting.  It  was  expressive. 

On  leaving  the  cars,  Judge  SPALDING  said 
to  the  crowd,  "  My  friends,  Bushnell  had  no 
regrets  to  express  that  he  had  aided  in  rescuing 


the  boy  John  ;  WE  have  no  regrets  to  express 
that  he  has  been  imprisoned." 

Mr.  BUSHNP:LL  was  then  welcomed  home  by 
Rev.  E.  II.  FAIRCHILD,  as  follows  :  — 

MR.  BUSHXELL, 

In  behalf  of  this  crowd  of  your  fellow-citi 
zens  gathered  to  greet  you  on  your  return  from 
jail.  I  am  requested  to  extend  to  you  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  and  welcome  you  home.  I 
esteem  it  a  high  privilege  to  discharge  an  office 
at  once  so  agreeable  and  so  honorable. 

For  many  years  we  have  known  you  only  to 
respect  and  esteem  you.  We  have  known  you 
as  a  citizen  incapable  of  an  act  of  injustice  to  a 
fellow  man,  or  to  your  country.  And  this  high 
estimation  of  you  has  by  no  means  been  dam 
aged  by  the  events  of  the  few  past  months. 

When  on  the  evening  of  the  13th  of  Septem 
ber  last,  you  returned  with  that  rescued  man, 
we  were  not  ashamed  of  you.  When  the  news 
came  of  your  indictment  by  a  grand  jury  se 
lected  from  a  small  minority  of  the  citizens  of 
this  district,  we  were  not  ashamed  of  you.  And 
when  we  heard  of  your  conviction  by  a  jury  of 
the  same  stamp,  and  of  your  sentence  by  a 
judge  eager  to  execute  the  most  impious  of  all 
laws,  we  were  not  ashamed  of  you.  And  now 
that  you  return  to  us  unsubdued,  ready  to  re- 
pe'at  the  same  act  when  opportunity  offers,  we 
are  not  ashamed  of  you.  Again,  I  say,  wel 
come  !  thrice  welcome  to  your  home  in  Ober 
lin,  and  to  the  county  of  Lorain  !  How  general, 
and  how  hearty  this  welcome  is,  let  the  cheers 
of  five  thousand  people  assembled  in  the  heat 
of  harvest,  on  the  first  working  day  of  the  week, 
at  the  hour  of  dinner,  bear  testimony. 

Yet,  sir,  we  should  do  you  and  ourselves  in 
justice,  should  we  intimate  that  we  have  gath 
ered  here  for  the  simple  purpose  of  expressing 
our  personal  regard  for  you.  \ 

We  are  well  aware  that  we  cannot  thus  hon 
or  you  on  your  return  from  prison,  without 
making  ourselves  responsible  for  the  act  that 
sent  you  there.  Indeed,  for  this  very  purpose 
we  are  here.  What  was  your  act  V  The 
alarm  was  given  and  came  to  your  ears,  that  a 
neighbor  had  fallen  among  thieves,  who  were 
dragging  him  South  into  life-long  bondage. 
Without  inquiring  into  the  character,  color,  or 
condition  of  that  neighbor,  without  asking 
whether  the  robbers  were  private  or  public 
robbers,  whether  they  acted  on  their  own  re 
sponsibility,  or  by  United  States  authority,  you 
hastened  to  the  spot,  delivered  the  "  spoiled  • 
from  the  oppressor,"  brought  him  to  a  friendly 
inn,  "  and  took  care  of  him." 

For  such  an  act  we  wish  to  be  responsible 
before  our  country  and  the  world.  You  could 
neither  have  been  "  a  good  Christian  nor  a 
good  citizen,"  had  you  coldly  witnessed  such 
an  outrage  on  a  fellow  man,  and  "  passed  by 
on  the  other  side." 

You  raised  no  standard  of  rebellion  against 
your  country  ;  you  simply  violated  an  inhuman 
statute  so  base,  that,  on  its  engrossment,  only 


OBERL1N-WELLINGTON  RESCUE. 


277 


two  Northern  Senators  voted  for  it ;  and  then 
you  quietly  submitted  to  its  penalty.  How  long 
we  will  imitate  you  in  this  latter  respect,  we  do 
not  propose  to  say.  We  acknowledge  our  obli 
gation  to  submit  so  long,  and  only  so  long  as  we 
lack  the  moral,  political,  and  physical  power  to 
render  the  enforcement  of  that  Act  impossible. 

We  belong  to  no  "  modern  school "  of  poli 
tics  or  theology,  and  lay  claim  to  no  new  light 
on  these  subjects.  We  belong  to  the  school  of 
the  Fathers,  who  having  been  driven  from  their 
native  land  by  the  persecutions  of  their  gov 
ernment,  taught  their  children  that  "  resistance 
to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God;"  or  to  the 
more  ancient  school,  which  exclaimed  to  the 
existing  authorities,  "  Whether  it  be  right  to 
hearken  unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judo;e 
ye ; "  or  to  that  still  more  ancient,  which  said 
to  the  king,  "  W"e  will  not  serve  thy  gods  nor 
worship  the  golden  image  which  thou  has  set 
up."  We  crave  the  honor  of  some  slight  con 
nection  with  the  long  line  of  prophets,  apostles, 
reformers,  and  martyrs,  who,  by  the  govern 
ments  of  their  time,  were  persecuted,  impris 
oned,  and  killed,  "  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy." 

Three  more  cheers  were  then  given,  when  the 
procession,  headed  by  the  Wellington  Sax  Horn 
Band,  and  including  the  Artillery,  Fire  Compa 
nies,  the  Elyria  Band,  the  "  Rescuers,"  visitors, 
etc.,  marched  to  the  immense  church,  which  was 
most  densely  crowded  with  thousands  of  the  best 
citizens  of  Lorain  county  and  vicinity.  The 
spacious  galleries  of  the  church  presented  a 
beautiful  spectacle,  being  almost  entirely  filled 
with  the  ladies  of  the  college  and  neighborhood. 
These  ladies  held  a  prominent  banner  in 
scribed  — 

THE  LADIES. 

1000 
WELCOME     YOU. 

Thrice  Welcome. 
GREETING. 

Such  a  beautiful  sight  as  those  galleries  pre 
sented  one  seldom  sees.  It  was  an  exhibition 
surpassed  nowhere  "  on  this  terrestrial  ball." 

A  large  choir  of  ladies  and  gentlemen  occu 
pied  the  front  of  the  gallery,  and  by  their  exe 
cution  added  greatly  to  the  interest  of  the  oc 
casion.  The  speakers  and  reporters  occupied 
the  pulpit 

Prof.  MONROE  opened  the  exercises  at  half 
past  one  o'clock,  by  calling  upon  the  venerable 
Father  KEEP  to  open  with  prayer,  which  he  did 
in  an  eloquent  and  stirring  appeal  to  the  God 
of  Heaven  for  his  blessing  upon  the  meeting, 
and  rendering  heartfelt  thanks  and  gratitude 
for  the  blessings  which  had  been  poured  forth 
on  the  "  Rescuers,"  and  enable  them  to  go 
through  that  trying  ordeal  and  despotic  rule. 

Prof.  MONROE,  as  Chairman,  first  called 
upon  Hon.  D.  K.  CARTTER,  who  responded 
in  his  usual  off-hand,  sarcastic,  and  impetuous 
manner. 

***** 


Mr.  CARTTER  closed  amid  the  most  enthusi 
astic  cheers.  His  remarks  having  been  fre 
quently  interrupted  with  shouts  of  laughter  and 
cheers. 

This  speech  was  followed  by  singing  by  the 
choir  of  a  magnificent  quartette  and  chorus, 
entitled  "  The  Gathering  of  the  Free,"  by  Proi* 
George  N.  Allen.  This  was  splendidly  per 
formed  by  the  choir,  setting  every  heart  beating 
with  exultation  and  sympathy. 

A.  G.  RIDDLE,  Esq.,  was  then  called  upon, 
and  rehearsed  with  hearty  eloquence  the  histo 
ry  of  the  trial  and  incarceration  of  those  who 
had  so  long  felt  the  force  of  a  tyrant's  prison. 
At  one  point  the  speaker  brought  Bushnell  up 
to  the  stand,  who  was  greeted  with  rousing 
cheers. 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  RIDDLE'S  remarks,  which 
were  heartily  cheered,  the  Hecker  band  gave 
some  of  their  unsurpassed  music.  After  which 
Hon.  R.  P.  SPALDING  was  introduced  to  the 
audience  as  the  man  who,  when  he  was  on  the 
Supreme  Bench  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  announced 
publicly,  that  should  a  fugitive  slave  be  brought 
before  him,  he  would  set  him  free.  He  was  re 
ceived  with  cheers,  and  remarked  — 

When  BUSHNELL  was  asked  by  the  Judge 
if  he  had  any  regrets  to  express  for  his  conduct, 
how  would  he  have  leaped  from  his  seat  and 
shouted,  "  No,  sir'ee,"  could  he  have  looked  for 
ward  to  this  proud  day,  when  five  thousand  citi 
zens  assemble  to  bid  him  welcome.  The  speak 
er  gave  a  high  tribute  to  the  character  of  Father 
Gillett,  who  told  him  at  Cleveland  that  should 
Tie  plead  "  nolle  contendcre,"  his  sons  at  home 
would  shut  the  door  against  him.  The  speaker 
then  gave  a  history  of  slavery  from  the  fifteenth 
century  to  the  present  time,  with  appropriate 
and  earnest  comments, 

Mr.  BUSHNELL  was  then  brought  up  to  tho 
stand.  The  applause  and  cheers  that  greeted 
him  spoke  truly  of  the  sympathy  and  welcome 
which  the  audience  felt  for  the  noble  "  felon." 
He  remarked,  that  while  he  had  felt  no  regret 
when  before  the  Court,  he  did  now  regret  that 
he  could  not  in  fitting  language  respond  to  their 
call.  He  had  been  imprisoned  for  disobeying 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  Marshal  Johnson 
told  him  that  that  law  had  been  enforced  on  the 
Reserve ;  but  this  audience  showed  that  it  could 
not  and  should  not  be  ;  and  as  for  him,  if  a  fu 
gitive  came  to  him  for  aid  he  should  have  it, 
though  all  the  mortals  in  Ohio  opposed  it,  so 
help  him  God.  "  Three  times  three  "  were  then 
given  with  a  will  for  Simeon  Bushnell  in  *'  speak 
ing  tones." 

Music  by  the  Wellington  band. 

Hon.  JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS  was  then  brought 
forward. 

[So  well  does  literally  "  ALL  THE  WORLD  " 
know  JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS,  and  just  what  he 
would  say  on  such  an  occasion,  that  we  may 
perhaps  be  pardoned  for  omitting  —  since  we 


278 


HISTOEY  OF  THE 


have  not  space  for  all  —  his  eloquent  address, 
as  we  have  also  the  scarcely  less  brilliant  one  of 
Mr.  CARTTER.] 

The  Marseilles  Hymn  was  then  executed  by 
the  choir,  the  solo  being  finely  sung  by  Miss 
Church,  and  the  full  choir  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty  ladies  and  gentlemen  joining  in  the  chorus 
with  splendid  effect. , 

Hon.  RALPH  PLUMB  (one  of  the  Rescuers) 
was  the  next  speaker.  On  the  13th  of  Sep 
tember  last,  just  ten  months  ago,  he  had,  it  is 
true,  been  glad  to  know  of  the  rescue  of  John 
Price  ;  but  he  was  ashamed  to  say  that  he  did 
nothing  to  aid  in  the  rescue.  It  was  not  these 
men  alone,  but  it  was  the  spirit  of  Oberlin, 
which  was  opposed  to  all  oppression,  which 
was  indicted.  But  years  ago  he  had  been 
guilty  of  rescuing  slaves.  [At  this  point  Mr. 
Giddings  arose  and  said  that  he  remembered 
one  Sunday  morning,  long  years  ago,  when  this 
man  Plumb  brought  a  whole  wagon  load  of 
slaves  to  his  house,  on  the  way  to  freedom.] 
The  speaker  then  went  on  to  describe  and 
speak  of  their  prison  lives  of  eighty-five  days, 
of  the  feelings  that  actuated  the  imprisoned, 
and  their  trials  when  thinking  of  their  families 
at  home.  He  had  felt  cheered  with  the 
thought  which  his  daughter  had  written  him 
while  in  prison,  "  Father,  it  is  a  great  boon  to 
be  the  lever,  or  even  the  stone  upon  which  that 
lever  rests,  which  is  to  lift  a  nation  and  a  whole 
peojjle  up  into  purer  atmosphere  where  free 
dom  can  live  and  bless."  They  should  go  on, 
until  Ohio  should  be,  what  she  professes  to  be, 
a  free  State,  and  until  our  whole  broad  laud  is 
free  from  slavery's  blighting  curse. 

Prof.  MONROE  announced  at  the  close  of  Mr. 
Plumb's  remarks,  that  it  had  been  said  that 
recent  events  had  soured  the  temper  of  the 
Oberlin  people ;  and  he  must  confess  that  Prof. 
Fairclrild,  one  of  the  most  amiable  of  men,  had 
become  so  soured  that  he  was  about  to  cane  a 
person  right  there  on  the  stage. 

PRESENTATION   ADDRESS    BY   PROF.   J.    C. 
FAIRCIIJLD. 

Mr.  President.  It  seems  to  be  your  prerog 
ative  to  assign  us  our  duties,  at  your  pleasure, 
however  grotesque  they  may  seem,  and  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  decline  them ;  but,  I  take  it, 
every  man  is  by  nature  chartered  with  the  privi 
lege  of  performing  his  duties  in  his  own  way. 
You  will  expect  me,  then,  to  administer  the  can 
ing  which  you  have  appointed  me,  in  our  plain 
Oberlin  fashion  —  not  with  that  display  of  re 
finement  andchivalry  which  might  be  appropri 
ate  to  the  chamber  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

There  are,  probably,  few  in  this  vast  assem 
bly  who  need  to  be  informed  that  our  friends 
at  Cleveland  experienced  much  kindness  from 
various  sources,  as  an  offset  to  the  pains  and 
penalties  laid  upon  them  by  United  States  offi 
cials.  At  their  first  introduction  to  prison 
•tfalls,  they  made  the  acquaintance  of  a  Sheriff 


whose  manhood  could  not  be  overshadowed  or 
perverted  by  his  official  character,  —  who,  with 
the  discernment  which  God  gives  to  the  true- 
hearted,  could  discover  honest  and  upright  men, 
even  under  the  brand  of  indicted  and  convicted 
felons.  Those  committed  to  him  as  prisoners, 
he  dared  to  receive  as  guests ;  and,  from  the 
first  moment  of  their  commitment  to  this  pres 
ent  hour,  he  has  made  it  his  care  to  administer 
to  their  comfort  and  welfare. 

Our  friends  were  sought  out  and  cared  for 
by  many  others.  Foremost  among  these,  was 
one  who  did  not  merely  come  and  look  on  them, 
to  "  pass  by  on  the  other  side,"  but  he  came  to 
them  with  such  comfort  and  help  as  personal 
attention  and  personal  resources  could  provide. 
He  took  care  of  them,  and  even  went  beyond 
the  parable,  in  not  leaving  them  until  he  saw 
them  safely  lodged  in  the  bosom  of  their  fam 
ilies.  • 

[Now,  Mr.  President,  do  not  permit  the  good 
people  here  to  say  that  I  have  intimated  that 
our  friends  had  fallen  among  thieves.  If  they 
press  the  illustration  to  that  extent,  they  must 
do  it  on  their  own  responsibility ;  I  was  brought 
up  not  to  call  bad  names.] 

Within  the  prison  walls,  our  friends  were  in 
troduced  to  a  jailer  —  whom  God  made  a  man 
before  he  was  made  a  jailer  —  and  to  his  ex 
cellent  wife  and  her  two  assistants,  all  of  whom 
were  unwearied  in  their  attentions  to  the  pris 
oners  and  their  friends  that  visited  them,  and 
by  their  considerate  kindness  gave  to  the 
gloomy  place  as  much  the  air  of  a  home  as  a 
prison  ever  had. 

The  citizens  of  Oberlin,  in  whose  behalf  I 
speak,  have  not  been  insensible  to  this  kindness, 
of  which  hundreds  of  them  have  been  personal 
witnesses.  Without  the  idea  of  repaying  it, 
they  have  wished  in  a  measure  to  relieve  their 
sense  of  obligation,  by  a  public  testimonial  of 
their  gratitude  ;  and  I  will  call  upon  our  friend 
Mr.  Grannis  to  accept  and  transmit  to  Mr. 
Sheriff  Wightman  this  cane,  presented  by  the 
citizens  of  Oberlin,  and  this  —  its  fellow' — to 
Mr.  Henry  R.  Smith,  the  good  Samaritan ;  a 
small  token  of  our  appreciation  of  their  kind 
ness.  Assure  them,  sir,  that  these  gifts  have 
been  selected  with  an  eye  to  utility  as  well 
as  comeliness — not  that  we  would  intimate 
that  they  are  afflicted  with  any  spinal  iceak- 
ness,  or  require  any  such  support  of  their 
manhood.  Nor  have  they  enemies  whose  as 
saults  they  might  repel,  —  nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  human  form  against  which  toe  bear  a  grudge, 
upon  which  we  would  wish  them  to  try  the 
temper  of  these  trusty  weapons.  But  if,  in 
their  pilgrimage  through  the  world,  they  should 
fall  in  with  the  monster  which  Mrs.  Partington 
has  called  the  fugitive  slave  Bill,  "  going  about 
seeking  whom  he  may  devour,"  the  mere  sight 
of  these  two  good  sticks  shall  frighten  him  back 
to  his  native  pandemonium,  whence  he  is  a  fugi 
tive,  and  where  he  "  owes  service  and  labor." 

The  matrons  of  Oberlin  who  have  thus  far 


OBERLIN- WELLING!  ON  RESCUE. 


279 


had  the  privilege  of  caring  for  their  husbands 
at  home,  have  provided  for  the  gentle  hostess  of 
our  friends,  Mrs.  John  Smith,  this  set  of 
spoons;  for  her  assistants,  Miss  Eliza  Morrill 
and  Miss  Lucy  P.  Wightman,  this  dress  and 
this  book;  assure  them  that  their  kindness 
will  be  held  in  remembrance,  and  that  they 
are  among  those  -whom  we  shall  delight  to 
honor. 

Frof.  FAIRCIIILD  then  presented  to  John  C. 
Granniss,  Esq.,  to  be  presented  by  him  to  the 
parties  named — a  gold-headed  cane  for  Sheriff 
Wightman  ;  a  similar  one  for  Mr.  H.  R.  Smith ; 
a  set  of  spoons  for  Mrs.  Smith  ;  a  dress  for  her 
sister;  and  a  book  for  Miss  Lucy  Wightman. 
These  articles  Mr.  Granniss  delivered,  and 
responded  for  the  recipients  in  a  happy  and 
fitting  manner. 

The  canes  are  heavy  ebony,  with  elegantly 
chased  gold  heads,  inscribed  to  the  recipients 
"  from  the  citizens  of  Oberlin."  They  are  val 
uable  articles,  both  intrinsically  and  for  their 
deeply  interesting  associations. 

Prof.  MORGAX  then  read  the  following  reso 
lution,  which  was  carried  with  a  will :  — 

Resolved,  That  the  people  of  Oberlin  in  Mass 
Meeting  assembled,  tender  to  R.  P.  SPALDIXG, 
F.  T.  BACKUS,  A.  G.  RIDDLE,  and  S.  O. 
GRISWOLD,  our  heartfelt  gratitude  for  the  un 
wearied  zeal  and  devoted  self-sacrifice  with 
which,  refusing  all  compensation,  they  have 
conducted  their  very  able  defence  of  the  Res 
cuers  before  the  U.  S.  Court  and  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State.  We  feel  that  no  fees 
could  have  bought  such  services,  and  that  no 
gift  can  duly  express  our  sense  of  the  debt  we 
owe ;  but  by  us  and  by  countless  others  of  the 
friends  of  right  and  freedom,  the  names  of 
these  able  jurists  and  their  noble  services  will 
be  had  in  everlasting  remembrance. 

Esq.  GOODWIX,  of  Sandusky,  was  then  in 
troduced,  and  spoke  of  the  present  contest 
between  common  and  higher  law  —  claiming 
that  nothing  was  "  law  "  save  that  which  com 
manded  what  was  right,  and  prohibited  what 
was  wrong.  He  spoke  with  words  of  counsel 
and  hope  for  the  future,  and  with  a  prophetic 
eye  looking  through  the  coming  ages  to  the 
last  day,  when  kings  and  beggars,  black  and 
white,  'bond  "and  free,  should  meet  together 
before  the  great  white  throne,  to  be  judged  for 
the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 

JOHN  LAXGSTOX,  Esq.,  rose  in  response  to 
a  call,  to  apologize  for  the  absence  of  his  brother 
Charles,  and  to  speak  a  word  for  himself.  In 
his  characteristic  bold  eloquence,  he  spoke  fear 
less  and  startling  words  in  opposition  to  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.  He  paid  a  high  and 
proud  tribute  to  the  speech  of  his  brother  in 
the  United  States  Court,  which  was  received 
-with  loud  applause.  He  thanked  his  noble 
friends  who  had  gone  up  to  Cuyahoga  county 
jail  —  thanked  them  in  his  character  as  a  ne 
gro  —  as  a  white  man  —  as  one  in  whom  the 
blood  of  both  races  joined — as  a  man  —  and 


as  an  American  citizen.  "We  wished  that  the 
wide  world  could  all  have  seen  him  standing 
there,  pouring  forth  in  clarion  notes  his  noble^ 
manlike,  and  godlike  thoughts.  No  more  elo 
quent  speech  was  made  yesterday  than  his. 

Prof.  MOXROE  then  introduced  Prof.  PECK, 
expressing  his  doubt  in  the  mathematical  asser 
tion  that  eight  quarts  were  equal  to  one  Peck. 

Prof.  PECK  remarked  that  he  had  been  put 
into  intimate  association  with  the  noble  men 
who  had  brought  eloquence  and  talent  to  bear 
upon  their  defence,  and  expressed  his  gratitude 
to  them  in  touching  words  and  kind  remem 
brances,  and  also  in  the  highest  and  tenderest 
terms  of  Jailer  Smith,  his  family,  and  those  as 
sociated  with  him  in  imprisonment,  expressing 
as  his  will  and  testament,  that  those  brethren 
should  be  the  first  to  follow  his  body  to  its  burial, 
and  the  ones  to  offer  up  the  last  prayer  over 
his  lifeless  clay. 

Judge  SPALDIXG  and  Mr.  RIDDLE,  for  the 
counsel  for  the  defence,  expressed  their  thanks 
for  the  compliments  paid  them,  but  asserted  that 
the  Bar  of  Cuyahoga,  with  possibly  a  few  ex 
ceptions,  were  entitled  to  equal  gratitude,  for 
all  were  ready  and  eager  to  leap  forward  for 
the  defence  of  such  men ;  —  "so  bring  on  your 
Rescuers." 

With  music  by  the  Ilecker  Band,  the  im 
mense  congregation  of  not  less  than  3,000  per 
sons  was  then  dismissed,  it  being  6  o'clock,  and 
at  7:50  the  Cleveland  delegation  returned  to 
the  city,  "  satisfied." 

The  meeting  was  an  earnest  and  a  good  one, 
—  not  less  than  five  thousand  persons  gathered 
to  do  honor  to  the  occasion.  Notwithstanding 
the  dust  —  the  intense  heat  of  the  sun's  rays  — 
the  time  in  the  middle  of  harvesting — and  the 
fact  of  its  being  the  first  working  day  of  the 
week,  the  hosts  of  freedom  came  up  and  en 
camped  in  the  strong-hold  of  liberty  and  equal 
ity.  Oberlin  is  not  "  subdued,"  and  never  will 
be. 

Of  all  the  features  of  the  day,  there  was 
nothing  that  was  of  more  interest  than  the  sing 
ing  by  the  vast  and  well-trained  choir.  It  was, 
without  exception  the  most  grand  and  glorious 
singing  —  the  nearest  to  our  conception  of  a 
grand  choral  harmony,  of  any  thing  we  ever 
heard. 

A  lady  remarked  to  us  on  the  homeward 
passage,  that  she  "  did  n't  believe  we  would 
hear  better  singing  in  the  other  world."  We 
do  believe  there  is  no  choir  like  that  one  in  the 
country.  No  words,  no  language  can  express 
the  beauty  and  sublimity  of  the  execution  of 
the  Marseilles  Hymn,  or  the  "  Gathering  of  the 
Free,"  and  so  will  not  attempt  it.  It  was  be 
yond  all  praise. 

After  partaking  of  a  bountiful  supper  at  Prof. 
PECK'S,  we  returned  home,  hearty  cheers  ris 
ing  as  the  excursionists  left  the  station,  and 
when  next  Oberlin  celebrates,  and  her  eleven 
hundred  students  are  "  out  of  school,"  and  the 
latch  strings  are  out,  "  may  we  be  there  to  see." 


280  HISTORY  OF  THE  • 

We  are  permitted  to  close  this  volume  with  the  following  beautiful  and  thrilling  lines,  the 
offering  of  a  recent  graduate  of  Oberlin  College. 

A    SONG    FOR    FREEDOM. 

EMILY  C.   HUXTINGTON. 

A  SONG  for  Freedom  !  let  it  ring 

In  wild  and  stirring  rhyme, 
Fit  for  the  glowing  lips  to  sing, 

When  beating  hearts  keep  time; 
For  all  the  hills  are  flushing  red, 

A  glorious  morn  is  breaking, 
And  earth  is  thrilling  to  the  tread 

Of  Freedom's  hosts  awaking. 

Through  the  long  night  we  only  heard 

The  distant  warder's  cry, 
And  here  and  there  a  soul  gave  back 

The  watchword  in  reply : 
Now,  full  and  clear  above  them  all, 

The  bugle  notes  are  sounding, 
A  thousand  voices  swell  the  call, 

A  thousand  hearts  are  bounding. 

From  lip  to  lip  along  the  lines, 

The  battle-cry  rings  out :  — 
**  GOD  SPEED  THE  RIGHT  ! "  then  loud  and  high 

The  kingly  leaders  shout :  — 
"  Now  with  your  good  swords  flashing  bare, 

O  host  of  GOD'S  anointing  ! 
Look  to  the  heavens  !  and  follow  where 

The  beacon  star  is  pointing  ! " 

Ho,  Tyrants !  ye  who  dared  to  steal 

The  pearl  ye  could  not  win, 
Who  thought  to  crush  with  iron  heel 

The  free-born  soul  within  ;  — 
Bowed  to  the  dust  beneath  your  sway, 

Our  hearts  spring  up  the  stronger ; 
Lo,  FREEDOM  takes  the  crown  to-day 

And  falsehood  rules  no  longer. 

We  cannot  fail,  while  day  by  day, 

In  every  cottage  home, 
Young  children  kneel,  and  softly  pray, 

"  Thy  heavenly  kingdom  come ! " 
So  courage,  heart !  for  come  it  must, 

That  kingdom  high  and  glorious, 
The  tyrant's  power  shall  fall  to  dust, 

And  truth  shall  reign  victorious, 

Brooklyn,  Conn. ) 
July  4, 1859.     j 


AU  IO<XS  MAY  K  KCMLEO  AfTEt  7  OAYl 

ft*f*wfi  and  Ncharo*  may  &•  mad*  4  doyt  pcfor  to  th«  du«  aal«. 

Sooks  may  b«  Rtotwtd  by  calng  642-340$. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


SENT  ON  ILL 

JAN  0  7  199! 

U.  C.  BERKELE 

Y 

FORMNO.DO6 


UNIVERSnY  C*  CALJFOPMA.  BERKELEY 
>KELEY.CA  94720^000 


YC 


BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


ivi83709 


.  E 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


ill  ! 


^uJilil'^),;!!! 

liui 


